First Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 18, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 34
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2021
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: Hon. A. Kang.
Introductions by Members
Hon. H. Bains: In the House today is my good friend, my supporter, TJ Dhillon. He’s accompanied by his beautiful wife, Aman, daughter Ava and son Hugo. They’re here to witness question period and then hopefully visit this very magnificent House of theirs to see how the business of the people is conducted here. Please help me give them a very, very warm welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
CHINOOK SALMON
J. Sturdy: Salmon fishing in waters around Vancouver and the south coast is an important part of our natural heritage and what makes our region so special. Few other places in the world can you live in such an amazing place and have the opportunity to fish for our treasured salmon and, in particular, chinook salmon.
In recent years, there has been considerable attention paid to chinook, and rightly so. Of particular concern are threatened stocks originating from the upper reaches of the Fraser River.
Last year the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issued a dramatic “no fishing for chinook” regulation in Howe Sound and other areas of the south coast during the period of August 1 to August 31. The regulation had significant negative social and economic impacts on coastal communities. However, there is little evidence this reduction in targeted harvest zones had the desired effect of increasing the survival rate of salmon returning to spawn.
In many of our local Vancouver fisheries, chinook stocks of concern are simply not present in the area during this time or, if so, at extremely low numbers. In fact, the vast majority of our south coast springtime chinook fishing opportunities did not encounter chinook stocks of concern over 99 percent of the time. They do, however, encounter many fish from U.S. hatcheries or from rivers on the south coast that aren’t experiencing the same challenges as Interior Fraser chinook.
The Sport Fishing Advisory Board has provided Fisheries and Oceans Canada with sound, science-based proposals to allow for the fishing of salmon where chinook stocks of concern are essentially not present in the area. To further safeguard wild chinook stocks of concern, many of these proposals only allow for the public to harvest the hatchery-marked chinook. Where endangered chinook are present in greater numbers, areas could be closed to protect these fish. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board proposals are an effective way of protecting chinook for future generations.
We have the responsibility to protect this species yet, at the same time, preserve our recreational fishing culture, all the associated fishing-related businesses and, especially, the communities that have always been part of our west coast fishing culture.
KUS-KUS-SUM PROJECT
R. Leonard: I’m pleased to share a story that weaves together environmental action and reconciliation in the Comox Valley.
A sawmill site on the edge of the Courtenay River that has sat vacant since the mid-2000s was the subject of a lot of speculation about what should be done there. In 2014, Project Watershed, a local environmental non-profit organization, saw an ecologically and culturally valuable natural asset that could be restored to its pre-contact state and returned to the caretakers of the land of plenty, the K’ómoks First Nation, for stewardship, as they had done for millennia before white settlers arrived on our shores.
Spearheaded by Project Watershed, a joint effort was formed between themselves, the K’ómoks First Nation and the city of Courtenay to build healing relationships with the K’ómoks First Nation and our community within a project to unpave paradise, restore salmon and wildlife habitat and positively impact climate change.
K’ómoks First Nation gave it the name Kus-kus-sum. The first land transfer to Project Watershed from Interfor, who was a willing and flexible seller, was completed recently after over three years of fundraising. Removing over eight acres of pavement is now underway. The depth and breadth of the community commitment has been and continues to be inspiring.
Kus-kus-sum has ignited the imagination of the community and the city of Courtenay. Local family foundations have joined children, cracking open piggy banks and exchanging birthday gifts for donations. This innovative project has also gained the significant approval of the provincial government, I’m proud to say.
Kus-kus-sum weaves environmental action with reconciliation efforts, revealing local injustices from a buried past and creating a synergy with restoration work that has propelled the healing journey as it reaches into families, schools and the whole community. Anyone can join a Kus-kus-sum. We proudly paddle together to a brighter future.
MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS
N. Letnick: I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the estimated 77,000 British Columbians with myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME.
ME is a complex chronic disease. According to the World Health Organization, it is a neurological disease, and 75 percent of those affected are unable to work, while 25 percent are homebound or bedridden. In many patients, the disease is triggered by viral infections.
People with ME experience a substantial loss of physical and/or cognitive function. The impact on quality of life is not unlike that of multiple sclerosis, stroke, diabetes, lung failure and cancer. Someone with severe ME may be bedridden and have trouble communicating.
In British Columbia today, it can take years for a diagnosis. Worse yet, many remain unaware or ill-informed about the disease, and as a result, there are often misdiagnoses or inappropriate or even harmful treatments. Current estimates report that it would take 300 years for all of B.C.’s patients to access the complex chronic disease program.
We all need to do better. As dedicated public servants, we can take action to raise awareness and promote positive change to make such programs more widely accessible, which is why I am encouraging every member of this House to take part in the My MLA and ME campaign. Starting this month, the ME/FM Society of B.C. will be reaching out to all MLAs to help us better understand this disease. Patients involved with the society will also be reaching out to our offices to help answer any questions.
For more information, please don’t hesitate to reach out to the ME/FM Society. Together, we can take many steps to learn more and help fight against this disease and bring positive change to the lives of British Columbians today and for generations to come.
JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
A. Mercier: British Columbia is incredibly fortunate to have a vibrant francophone community. Later today, at a special virtual celebration, the province will proclaim March 20 as Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique.
There are more than 70,000 francophones and over 300,000 French-speaking people in British Columbia. They come from all parts of the world and are an integral part of our province, contributing to a strong and inclusive society.
We’ve heard it time and time again: “This past year was different.” We’ve heard the phrase “in these uncertain times” over and over again. Well, when times are uncertain, we can count on British Columbians to step up, to go above and beyond. Our B.C. francophone community did just that.
The theme for this year’s B.C. francophonie day celebration is “Going beyond in time of pandemic.” “Aller plus loin en temps de pandémie.” At today’s special event, we will recognize an organization that went over and above the call of duty to help some of British Columbia’s most vulnerable populations. This organization adapted its services quickly to deal with the unique challenges of supporting British Columbians while respecting public health orders and guidelines.
I’d like to invite you to join us virtually today at noon on the B.C. government’s YouTube channel to find out which francophone organization is going to be recognized and to show your appreciation and celebrate B.C.’s francophone community.
Je vous invite donc à célébrer virtuellement la Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique avec tous les francophones et francophiles de la province, aujourd’hui à midi.
Merci.
[French text and translation provided by A. Mercier.]
DOUGLAS TREATY AND
HUNTING AND FISHING
RIGHTS
A. Olsen: I hear members of this chamber sincerely acknowledge the traditional and even unceded territories of their local Indigenous People. This is an important change from 2017, when I was first elected to represent my territory, W̱SÁNEĆ.
We are 169 years and one month removed from the day that Sir James Douglas collected the marks of our SIÁM, guaranteeing the fishing and hunting rights of the W̱SÁNEĆ. This institution has never fulfilled its responsibilities to that treaty. In the years following, officers took away our SX̱OLE, sacred fishing nets, and arrested our hunters.
More than two decades ago my father was arrested by officers empowered by the laws created in this chamber for participating in his treaty-protected hunt. His name was added to generations of hunters forced into the courts to defend their name, their dignity and to elevate their rights, even as lawyers representing this chamber tried to tear them down.
My father and our people persevered. We are here today with many successful defences of our fishing and hunting rights, including my father’s victory at the Supreme Court of Canada. Jim, Morris, White, Bob, Bartleman, Morris and Olsen are just some of the names of the warriors who fiercely and selflessly defended our rights.
As we all humbly acknowledge the traditional territories of our ridings, you would think that our lawyers would no longer be dragging W̱SÁNEĆ hunters into court to undermine and erode. Ten years after my father’s victory, a new case, Sampson, was added to this intergenerational list. Those territorial acknowledgments are meaningless if the province stubbornly pushes ahead with cases like Sampson.
It’s time for those with authority in this House to stop arresting our hunters and do what Douglas did. Sit down with our leaders to ensure those words the members utter in here don’t ring as hollow as the promise that Douglas made our ancestors has turned out to be.
NORTHEAST VANCOUVER
URGENT PRIMARY CARE
CENTRE
N. Sharma: I rise for the first time in person in this House with good news for my community. On February 15, the Vancouver Northeast Urgent and Primary Care Centre opened its doors in Vancouver-Hastings. This urgent primary care centre and its committed staff will be serving my community with a range of services from non-urgent primary care, harm reduction, mental health services and making much-needed connections to family doctors.
For years, I know that thousands of families have gone without a family doctor or easy access to primary care. Too often people are left waiting for hours in emergency rooms for stitches and broken bones, concerned about how long they will have to wait for urgent medical care. I’ve had the opportunity to visit this facility, and I saw firsthand how committed and passionate the front-line workers are to serving the needs of my community. I know this facility will help thousands of families, and I’m told that since opening its doors, it already is serving my community well.
I look forward to watching the UPCC expand and grow over time and make further connections with service providers for families, seniors, youth at risk, serving as a vital link to addressing the unique urgent primary care challenges of my community. In fact, today community organizations are coming together with UPCC staff to connect virtually to learn about this important addition to my community.
I want to thank the committed front-line workers, Vancouver Coastal Health, the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health for addressing the important health care needs of my community and serving people closer to home.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is seeking leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. N. Simons: Thank you very much, everyone. I just want to take this opportunity to inform the House that it is my 19th anniversary to my beautiful partner, Slim Milkie. Many of you know him, and I just want to acknowledge my beautiful spouse and the 19 years we’ve been able to spend together.
Oral Questions
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
AND ACTION ON
HOMELESSNESS
S. Bond: Maple Ridge, Kamloops, Nanaimo and now Penticton. All of these cities have had their concerns about how to provide appropriate supports for those dealing with mental health and addictions ignored and, in fact, steamrolled by this government.
Yesterday when the Premier claimed he was “working with the city of Penticton,” his Attorney General was actually bullying elected officials in the city of Penticton. He has repeatedly insulted local officials and ignored their very legitimate concerns about the lack of adequate provincial mental health supports. At a time when Penticton is asking for more mental health supports, the government is cutting funding to the Pathways program, to the addiction treatment centre so desperately needed.
To the Premier, does he believe that cutting services, ignoring the needs of people in Penticton and elsewhere, threatening and bullying a community is acceptable?
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the important question.
It’s a difficult situation, as Minister for Housing, when a municipality makes a decision to close an emergency shelter with 42 people in it and they have nowhere to go. What do you do? There are two options. One is that you ignore the issue. You let the city empty out the shelter into a local park, and you hope that an encampment doesn’t result from it. The alternative is, as the member says — and I freely acknowledge this — to use what are quite draconian provincial powers to override that local decision and continue to operate the shelter.
There are no good options here. I don’t pretend that this was a good option or a solution to homelessness. It is a necessary decision. It is a hard decision. But to me, taking into account the dignity and, frankly, the lives of 42 British Columbians, 42 Penticton residents, 80 percent of which have lived in Penticton for five or more years…. What to do in that situation? It turned out to be a difficult decision, but at the end of the day, the only decision — to continue to operate the shelter, to move ahead as quickly as we can to put supportive housing in place so that we can close the shelter and we can all move forward.
I say to the member and I say to the mayor and council in Penticton: that’s the only non-negotiable. The only non-negotiable is that we will not go backwards and move people out of shelter back into parks. Anything else is on the table. Let’s talk about it. Let’s work together.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: That’s an amazing change of tone by this Attorney General when he’s called on to answer a question in the Legislature. He started this discussion in a dismissive, combative, bullying way. To suggest…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
S. Bond: …that the locally elected officials in Penticton don’t care about the residents in their community would be absolutely inaccurate, and the minister should withdraw that remark.
He has been the problem in this discussion from the beginning. Let’s be clear. Penticton was shocked when this minister, instead of sitting down and having thoughtful and reasonable discussions about an issue that matters to the local Penticton council and all British Columbians, started to bully and threaten that if they didn’t listen, it was his way or the highway.
Let’s be clear. Penticton needs — and so do other communities across British Columbia — full, wraparound services to support people with mental health and addictions challenges. That’s what the Penticton council was asking this minister for. Instead, what did they get? Bullying and threats.
How can the Premier…? Once again to the Premier, how can he justify bullying municipalities at the very same time that he and his government are failing to provide adequate resources for people who need help and closing an addictions treatment centre?
Hon. D. Eby: The member is simply wrong. The reason she doesn’t provide any quotes for my insults and bullying is because they don’t exist. They do not exist. She suggests….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Members have asked the question, and the time to get the answer….
Hon. D. Eby: The member suggests that because I said if Penticton emptied the shelter out into the park, an encampment would likely result, and that our use of provincial powers could result in a court challenge that would result in exactly that outcome. That we would provide tents and manage, as best as possible….
Interjection.
Hon. D. Eby: We have a thousand tents in a stockpile. That’s right. That we would provide tents….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: That we would provide tents to people as a basic shelter from the elements…. The member says that’s bullying. Well, that’s just a fact.
I had two meetings with Penticton — extended meetings on Zoom, more meetings than any other city that doesn’t have an active encampment — before they made this decision, in an effort to avoid this outcome. In one of those meetings, I said to Penticton council: “I suspect we agree on far more than we disagree on. Let’s keep working until we find something we disagree on.”
Well, unfortunately, we found something we disagreed on. That was whether or not we should go backwards and dump 42 people out into a park. I will not withdraw that. That is a disgraceful decision.
I am very sympathetic to municipal leaders in the time of COVID, facing addiction and mental health issues that are more visible than they have ever been. Our government is very sympathetic — $100 million in a stronger communities fund to grapple with these issues, billions in housing. We cannot go backwards. That’s the only non-negotiable.
I am keen to work with Penticton council. My phone is on. My door is open. I have said that so many times. I disagree profoundly with their decision. I look forward to working with them.
ADDICTION SERVICES IN
INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY
AND STATUS OF PATHWAYS CENTRE
T. Halford: Recently the Premier claimed that we need to do more at the provincial level and that we need more resources to do that. We all agree with that. But Penticton has learned that the Premier’s idea of doing more actually means threatening more tent cities and fewer addiction treatment centres.
My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Will she stop making the situation worse and restore the cuts to the Pathways addiction treatment centre?
Hon. D. Eby: Currently in Vancouver and Victoria, we’re spending literally tens of millions of dollars of public money to respond to encampments. We’re dealing with encampments across the province. And I’ll be blunt. These are the product of 16 years of underinvestment in housing and supports in our province. We won’t solve this problem overnight.
The member fundamentally misrepresents our efforts. My extremely reluctant decision in Penticton was informed by trying to avoid an encampment, not expand them or threaten them with an encampment — to stop an encampment from happening. The member fundamentally misrepresents the addiction treatment approach of the health authority in that area as well. They’re bringing those services in-house to provide better and more integrated services.
I understand if the members have concerns about providing services in their community. I want to work with them. The Minister for Mental Health and Addictions wants to work with them. We want to work with city councils. We are working with city councils across the province in really constructive ways. Penticton is the only city where we are using paramountcy right now.
I’ll just say, with respect: I think that, in this House, we share concerns about homelessness, addiction and mental health, and this government has done a lot more than we’ve seen previously.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Halford: My question was on Pathways. Clearly, we have a minister responsible for mental health and addictions that has little responsibility for the file of mental health and addictions.
I’ll try it again. For 20 years, Pathways has delivered critical services. This non-profit is being forced to close because this government decides it knows best, replacing an experienced non-profit with a model that has few, if any, staff with lived experiences.
My question to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Will she step up and stop making it worse and give those with addictions the supports they need?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: As I’ve said before to the member, Pathways has been a valued contributor in Penticton for almost two decades. We’re grateful for their work. Addictions counselling is important. Their service, their contracted service to Interior Health, has been valuable and appreciated.
This is what Interior Health is doing: shifting away from only addictions counselling, bringing the service in-house so that there is a broad range all along the entire continuum of care for addiction support, including treatment, recovery, bringing it in-house, not having it only available for Penticton but for the entire South Okanagan. This is an expansion of service, which is just what our government is committed to and just what people across British Columbia and in the South Okanagan have been asking.
This is what else we’ve brought to Penticton. A new urgent primary care centre is opening at the end of March. It will provide long-term primary care but with a particular focus on people with mental health and addictions — again, looking at that underlying health. In the Interior Health region more broadly, ten government-funded youth treatment beds.
We’re doubling youth treatment beds across British Columbia, something that the B.C. Liberal government failed to do when they had 16 years to do it. We’ve also added, this month, in the Interior, five new innovative outreach teams — they’re called integrated treatment teams — being able to deliver service to people that have not been able to walk in the door of a counselling or addictions treatment and recovery centre because of child care.
There is much more to do, but we are delivering a tremendous expansion that’s going to help people.
MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES
T. Stone: The reality is that after four years of this government, the situation is worse than ever. Instead of helping, they’re shutting down the Pathways addiction treatment program. This is a program that helps over 1,000 people in Penticton every single year. Regrettably, in Keremeos, the same thing is happening, where a youth residential substance use treatment program has been shut down.
Again to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will she admit that her approach is failing four years into this government, and will she ensure that our most vulnerable populations in communities across the province actually receive the supports that they so desperately need?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: We are committed to expanding access to mental health and addictions treatment and support. In four years, we have done so much more than the previous government did. We are reaching more people. We’ve made historic investments. We’ve expanded, in every way, access and the range of services. We’ve been building a continuum of care for mental health and addictions treatment while fighting two public health emergencies.
There was no system in place when we formed government in 2017. Ten youth treatment beds have opened in Kelowna, in early March. Another ten are going to be ready by the end of the month. We’re adding more beds as we enhance and streamline services to get better-quality care.
A new 20-bed specialized treatment centre for youth opened in Chilliwack last summer, supporting youth ages 13 to 18.
The Ashnola at the Crossing centre in Keremeos hasn’t been open for more than a year. Interior Health let the centre know earlier this year that they won’t be renewing their contract. In fact, Ashnola did not apply to have their contract renewed.
We are adding services in many other areas in the region. People accessing support in their most terrible time of need have got much [audio interrupted].
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: Again, this is a government that’s been in power now for four years. They keep talking about the former government. They are the former government. In these last four years, homelessness is up dramatically. Tent cities are popping up everywhere. Overdoses and deaths from overdoses are up. That’s on their watch, their four years in office.
The bottom line is this: the addiction crisis is worse than it’s ever been — again, under this government. Communities and social service agencies are practically begging the government to provide the additional resources needed so that they can better support vulnerable populations in their communities.
In my hometown, Kamloops city council just recently passed a motion calling on…. They’re urging, pleading for this government to ensure that they’re directing true wraparound supports and services to ensure that the people who need those supports are getting them in Kamloops.
Again to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will she stop making the situation worse, and will she ensure that the supports are provided that are desperately needed by vulnerable populations in communities across the province?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: That there is more to do is not in question.
The pandemic has made everything worse. It has increased homelessness. It has increased the overdose crisis. It has stretched people’s personal mental health. It has meant that mental health and addiction services have had to go to half capacity and modify their operations. Everything is harder right now. There’s no question.
Our government, before the pandemic, had invested and expanded services deeply and, since the pandemic began, has stepped up in every way, in many of the ways that Kamloops council is asking — safe supply, decriminalization as a way to remove stigma. We have transformed, provincewide — in the greatest and fastest transformation of mental health care access — online mental health supports that are reaching people in every corner of the province. We’ve opened B.C.’s first mental health and response centre in Surrey, opened a new mental health and wellness centre at Royal Columbian.
That the opposition dedicated only one-quarter of the budget in this October campaign, what our government and our party was willing to commit to mental health and addictions, tells me a lot about the level of their commitment to the cause, and the voters chose accordingly.
K. Kirkpatrick: On this government’s website, there is this wonderful video. It’s currently there. It talks about the value of the Sequoia and the Alder youth recovery homes, both located in Vancouver. These provide needed beds for young people experiencing homelessness, mental health and addiction.
Now, the only problem with this great video is that government cut the funding last year to both Sequoia and Alder House, and they’re both closed now.
Why is the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions making things worse with cuts instead of giving people the help that they need?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The expansion of services in every way — whether it’s youth, whether it’s overdose, whether it’s addiction — is unprecedented. The need is unprecedented, and there is absolutely more to do.
There are many services that have moved in-house because they should be part of the health care delivery system. We don’t want to have mental health and addictions treatment separated from health care. This happens. Contracts change with the health authorities.
In every way, we’ve expanded access to services. We have got integrated youth and child mental health teams in five different regions of the province, a way that we’re working together to prevent small problems from turning into big ones. Doubling youth treatment beds, launching new health services for post-secondary students, 24-7 access to counselling, expansion of funding for suicide prevention and mental wellness in Indigenous communities, building, with the First Nations Health Authority, six rebuilt addictions treatment centres…. I could talk all day about the work that we’ve implemented.
K. Kirkpatrick: As my colleagues have pointed out and as I’ve heard from my social services colleagues, under this government, things have gotten worse. They have not gotten better.
This minister is responsible for ensuring that the services are there for people, but her budget is smaller than the Office of the Premier. Clearly, more resources are needed to help people get better, yet programs like Sequoia and the youth Alder House recovery home are being cut.
When will this minister stop passing the buck, accept responsibility and start giving people the support that they need?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: We have got a long way to go to overcome the overdose crisis and to connect people immediately and quickly with the mental health supports that they need, but wait times are shorter. There are more services available in the four years that we have had government.
The pandemic has set everything back on homelessness, mental health and the overdose crisis. There is a direct link. But thank goodness we put so many of those supports in place — $746 million from my ministry alone to mental health and addictions over a five-year period. Out of the Health Minister’s budget, $2.7 billion annually.
I’ll remind the member again: her own party committed only 25 percent of what New Democrats did to the public in the election campaign in October, just six months ago. That, to me, says a lot about the B.C. Liberals’ commitment to the cause, let alone what they failed to do over the 16 years that they were in power.
J. Tegart: Yesterday Christine Sorensen, president of the B.C. Nurses Union, had this to say about mental health services: “We are under-resourced and understaffed, and we have no place sometimes to refer patients when they are discharged.”
This is happening under the watch of this Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Things are worse, not better.
Why is the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions failing to give people the help they so desperately need?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Workers on the front line, whether they’re in the non-profit centre or whether they’re nurses and health care practitioners, were asked to do so much with so little support. It’s something that we are working hard to overcome.
We’ve expanded people in seats. The expansion of funding to health care workers is unprecedented under the four years we’ve been in government. The expansion of services for people seeking help. The reduction in wait times, although it’s still too long, is, again, unprecedented in B.C.’s history.
We are not only relying on nurses and primary care providers but expanding from a pure support perspective. We’ve got eight new Foundries about to open up. That will be a total of 19 across the province, where youth and young people up to age 24 can access mental health and addictions supports, especially on a peer level so that they can support each other.
Increasing support for mental health in the workplace and an unprecedented increase in the budget commitment to both public health and also to mental health and the overdose crisis.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.
J. Tegart: Well, Mr. Speaker, stopgaps are not enough. The minister is not doing enough. She needs to step up, accept responsibility and take the necessary steps to ensure a comprehensive mental health and addictions system.
Will the minister admit her approach is failing and start providing support to people who so desperately need it?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: As was stated so clearly by Dr. Bonnie Henry, it is hard to fight two public health emergencies when there was no system of care in place in 2017.
We’ve been working hard every day. The creation of a dedicated ministry, the first in Canada, to focus every day on mental health and overcoming the overdose crisis is an expression of our commitment to building that system of care, where there was none.
The unprecedented expansion of services, both on overdose response and on mental health and combatting mental illness…. It’s unprecedented. The extent of the budget — again, unprecedented.
Is there more to do? Yes, there is. Is every life lost tragic? Yes, it is. We are working hard in every way to make things better. I’m delighted to hear that the opposition now cares about this issue, and I hope we can work together on this.
OPIOID CRISIS AND CARRIER-SEKANI
ADDICTION TREATMENT
FACILITY
M. de Jong: The minister says she can speak all day. Well, that may be the case, but here’s what people in Penticton are hearing. They are hearing threats, and they are hearing insults.
To the Minister of Mental Health, if you live in Prince George, you’re scratching your head because you’re trying to understand how it is and why the government actually opposed a proposal that would create a desperately needed 60-bed treatment facility in Prince George.
Can the Minister of Mental Health explain how it is that with record numbers of people dying, she couldn’t even manage to convince her own cabinet colleague the Minister of Agriculture not to oppose the creation of a desperately needed treatment facility in Prince George?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: That the overdose crisis has taken so many lives in British Columbia and that it has hit Indigenous People disproportionately is not fair. Because of that, in our partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, our government has committed $20 million to build two new and six replacement healing centres that the First Nations Health Authority will oversee.
On March 4, Chief Corrina Leween wrote to me, letting me know that the independent Agricultural Land Commission had turned down the Carrier-Sekani application for a non-farm use. On March 9, I met with the Chief and committed to her at that point that we are continued investors in the project. We’re counting on the Carrier-Sekani being able to build it, because the need is so deep.
The independent ALC said that they found it not to be an appropriate non-farm use. I have committed to the Chief that I will work with my counterparts to try to find a path forward. It was not the NDP government that opposed the non-farm-use application. It is the NDP government that is investing with the Carrier-Sekani in new construction.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: There are a couple of things that the minister conveniently tries to ignore in providing that answer. First of all, last year her government attempted to shut down a women’s treatment centre in my community, in Abbotsford, and they would have succeeded had they not been called out and been embarrassed into changing.
In the case of Prince George, we are talking about marginal agricultural land that has been used as a resort, and no one can remember it ever being farmed. Here’s what the decision said: “While the panel appreciates the social benefits of the proposal, it could further alienate the property from future agricultural endeavours and is therefore inconsistent with the mandate of the commission.”
This government gave that commission their mandate. A new mandate, Mr. Speaker, that they are now using to frustrate the creation of the very treatment facilities that we so desperately need in this province.
One thousand seven hundred and twenty-six people have died, Mr. Speaker. All of us are impacted by that. All of us care about that. But apparently, in the minds of the officials within the Agriculture Ministry who opposed the proposal in Prince George, that doesn’t qualify. That represents an appreciation of the social benefits.
We’re talking about people staying alive. The minister says she cares about keeping people alive. I believe she cares about people staying alive. Then it’s time for her to do her job as minister and speak to her colleague and make sure that agencies that want to create a place where they’ll stay alive can build that place, and 60 people will stay alive.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question and the member’s concern. It sounded like there was a question. If the member wants to get to the question…. I’m more than happy to let him get to the question, if he didn’t already ask it.
Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, take a seat.
Member for Abbotsford West, continue.
M. de Jong: Well, the Government House Leader may want to step in, but there is actually only one person that can answer this question. It is the Minister of Mental Health, who has explained what she did after the decision.
We’d like to know…. I want the minister to explain to this House — the Minister of Mental Health — what she did before the decision from the ALC to ensure that members and colleagues in her government were supportive of a desperately needed facility that should be built, can be built, would be built, except for the actions of this government.
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way.
Let’s be clear. The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has outlined, step by step, all the kinds of programs, the investments this government has made since taking office four years ago — proper plans in place.
What we hear from the opposition and what we hear from that side in this question is that they are wanting government to interfere with the decisions of an independent body whose job and mandate is to look after agricultural land, to turn back the clock on the old days, where cabinet ministers interfered constantly in decisions of an independent body.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer.
Hon. M. Farnworth: What this government has said…. It has outlined that there was a decision made, but they are working with the proponents on a path forward. That’s the appropriate way to do it, and that’s the method that this government is taking forward.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 4.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Courtenay-Comox, I hear, had a point of order?
R. Leonard: I believe the rules that we are operating under relate to online, the hybrid setting. If we wanted to raise points of order, if we wanted to speak from our hybrid position, our virtual position, we should be doing it through the chat line.
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct, Member. Bring it to the attention of the Clerk. That’s the way to do it, yes.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 4 — FIREARM VIOLENCE
PREVENTION
ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 10:57 a.m.
On clause 5 (continued).
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to clause 5.
[CLAUSE 5, by renumbering the proposed clause 5 as clause 5 (1) and by adding the following:
(2) For certainty, this section must be construed in accordance with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.]
The Chair: Members, we’ll wait a few moments while the amendment is distributed to all members. Members in the chamber, a copy will be distributed to you shortly. Members online, you will be receiving a copy electronically.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Farnworth: This amendment arises out of the debate that we had on Bill 4 last week.
As you know, I agreed to stand down on clause 5 so that I could consider the issues and concerns raised in this House. I believe that the bill was in the right and did what we intended it to on public safety, but I understand the concerns raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands.
We have brought forward the amendment, which I believe will deal with the issues raised. This section must be interpreted as being in line with section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. That’s why this clause is being clarified this way, as well as a number of other clauses which will be cross-referenced with section 5 to ensure that they are also interpreted the same way. Those are technical.
I most certainly appreciate the concerns raised by the member. As I said, it was certainly our intention to make sure that it’s in line with UNDRIP, which I believe it is. This clause will further strengthen that.
I thank the member for raising the issue. The amendment we have before us, I think, will deal with the issues that all of us want to assure, in this House, are addressed in the appropriate way.
A. Olsen: I’d like to start my brief comments…. I’ll keep my comments to this clause, and we’ll move through the other clauses fairly quickly.
I just want to, first, raise my hands to the minister in gratitude for taking the time and the space to have a lengthy debate, a week ago yesterday, and for the patience that he exhibited as we worked through some of the information that, I think, is not widely accessible to British Columbians.
We were able to account for the history, as it has unfolded, and the challenges that some of the laws that have been created in this chamber — the impacts that those laws have had on people. I really appreciate the debate that we had.
While I acknowledge that the amendment that’s being proposed doesn’t directly address or include references to specific hunting rights, it is important that what is being acknowledged is that this act cannot and should not infringe upon those treaty rights. As well, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this amendment provides additional protection where I think it should, and that’s in the legislative process rather than in the regulation-making process.
I want to, at this point in the debate, acknowledge that the important changes that need to be made within the approach of the government, the approach of the agencies and ministries that are empowered by the government and the laws that we make in this House…. Those changes need to be made in the Wildlife Act.
To provide further protection to the Douglas treaties hunting rights or the treaty 8 hunting rights, just Indigenous hunting rights in general…. Those need to be reflected in a different act, at a different time, in a different conversation. I look forward to engaging the government, as I know Indigenous leaders do and Indigenous hunters do, on those important conversations as any changes to the Wildlife Act are contemplated.
As I just mentioned, I think it is important that this is reflected in the legislation. I acknowledge the minister’s suggestion that this is going over and above. However, I think it’s important that when we’re making these laws and this information is brought forward, the actions are taken, and that’s what we see here today.
I think one of the challenges that has informed my life personally is that when rights are established or rights are affirmed through these court processes, we do our best to not continue harassing those people that have those rights — to then have to go back and defend and back and defend. That was one of the reasons why I pushed back so strongly on the suggestion that the appropriate place for these discussions, or some of these discussions, is in the courts. It’s very expensive, very timely and costly, both in terms of personal energy as well as feelings and, as well, the impact that it has on the communities, especially on the rights and title holders.
My final comments on this. This is to the minister and to all of the government. I believe that this process we’re undertaking here today with this amendment is a reflection of how this place best works, where issues are raised, pauses are taken, reflections are made, amendments are tabled. We have this discussion. Then we move on to the next section, and we move on to the next piece of legislation.
It’s in the spirit of that that I’ve got a tremendous amount of gratitude for the Government House Leader, for the minister responsible for this bill, Public Safety and Solicitor General. I thank him and the government for taking this time, over the last week, to reflect on this. It has given me the opportunity, as well, to reflect on this with the leaders of our community.
With that, I’m happy to support this amendment. I’m happy to continue the work that we have ahead of us, in our relationship with government, to ensure that future pieces of legislation that are brought to this chamber also reflect the important work that many of our ancestors…. Our S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN, those people that came before us, laid that pathway for us.
I raise my hands, Minister.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.
M. Morris: I agree with this amendment as well.
It’s good to see section 35 of the Constitution Act highlighted here. The constitution is the very fibre of what supports all the laws in British Columbia and across Canada here. So to recognize the very broad application of section 35 I think is the appropriate way to go.
I applaud the minister for taking this move.
Amendment approved.
Clause 5 as amended approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: With that amendment to clause 5 now adopted by the committee, there is a need to make a consequential amendment to a number of clauses of the bill to amend cross-references to section 5 within the bill. These proposed amendments were distributed to members with the amendment to clause 5.
As such, I seek leave to move the following motion.
[That the passage of clauses 10, 62, 65, 80, 86, 94, 95 and 101 of Bill (No. 4) intituled Firearm Violence Prevention Act by the Committee be rescinded, and that the Committee reconsider the clauses for the purpose of considering proposed amendments.]
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
The Chair: Members, clauses 10, 62, 65, 80, 86, 94, 95 and 101 of Bill 4 are again before the committee and will be considered in their proper order.
On clause 10.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 10, by adding the underlined text as shown:
Exemptions for designated officials and prescribed exemptions
10 (1) In this section:
“designated official” means an individual who is any of the following:
(a) a peace officer, other than a mayor, as described in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the definition of “peace officer” in section 29 [expressions defined] of the Interpretation Act;
(b) a conservation officer within the meaning of section 1 (1) [definitions] of the Environmental Management Act;
(c) a wildlife officer;
(d) a park officer or park ranger within the meaning of section 1 [definitions] of the Park Act;
(e) an employee of an armoured car guard service within the meaning of section 1 [definitions] of the Security Services Act;
(f) a prescribed person;
“wildlife officer” means an individual who is any of the following:
(a) an assistant director, director or regional manager within the meaning of section 1 (1) [definitions and interpretation] of the Wildlife Act;
(b) a prescribed officer or employee of the government.
(2) A designated official who carries out an action that would otherwise contravene any of the following provisions does not contravene the provision if the action is lawful for the purposes of exercising the designated official’s powers or performing the designated official’s duties:
(a) section 3 [prohibition against using, transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe manner];
(b) section 4 (1) or (2) [prohibition and requirement respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or boat];
(c) section 5 (1) [prohibition against discharging firearm from vehicle or boat];
(d) section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in vehicle];
(e) section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm].
(3) The regulations may establish exemptions in relation to a prohibition or requirement under section 3, 4, 5 (1), 6 (2), 8 (2) or 9 (2).]
Amendment approved.
Clause 10 as amended approved.
On clause 62.
Hon. M. Farnworth: For those watching, the reason that we do this is because section 5 is referenced in a number of other sections. By doing the amendment in section 5, we want to make sure that the technical aspects are correct. That’s why we move on each subsequent section that has been impacted by an amendment to section 5.
With that, I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 62, by adding the underlined text as shown:
Power to arrest without warrant
62 A peace officer may arrest a person, without a warrant, if the peace officer reasonably believes that the person is committing an offence by contravening any of the following:
(a) section 3 [prohibition against using, transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe manner];
(b) section 4 (1) or (2) [prohibition and requirement respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or boat];
(c) section 5 (1) [prohibition against discharging firearm from vehicle or boat];
(d) section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in vehicle];
(e) section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm];
(f) section 9 (2) [prohibition against possessing low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm if subject to federal prohibition];
(g) section 11 (1), (2) or (3) [prohibition against selling, renting or supplying low-velocity firearm, imitation firearm or ammunition to minor];
(h) section 15 (2) or (3) [prohibition against minor discharging or possessing low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm in prohibited area];
(i) section 18 [prohibition against possessing firearm or imitation firearm in or on designated property];
(j) section 32 (1) or (2) [prohibition against using shooting range if identification or federal licence not produced];
(k) section 57 (1) [duty to permit peace officer to inspect certain weapons and things];
(l) a prescribed provision of this Act or the regulations.]
Amendment approved.
Clause 62 as amended approved.
On clause 65.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 65, by adding the underlined text as shown:
Higher penalty offences
65 (1) A person who contravenes any of the following commits an offence:
(a) section 3 [prohibition against using, transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe manner];
(b) section 4 (1) or (2) [prohibition and requirement respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or boat];
(c) section 5 (1) [prohibition against discharging firearm from vehicle or boat];
(d) section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in vehicle];
(e) section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm];
(f) section 9 (2) [prohibition against possessing low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm if subject to federal prohibition];
(g) section 11 (1), (2) or (3) [prohibition against selling, renting or supplying low-velocity firearm, imitation firearm or ammunition to minor];
(h) section 18 [prohibition against possessing firearm or imitation firearm in or on designated property];
(i) section 29 [prohibition against providing false or misleading information in shooting range records];
(j) section 57 [duty to permit peace officer to inspect certain weapons and things];
(k) section 63 [prohibition against obstructing inspection, search, seizure or arrest];
(l) section 64 [prohibition against providing false or misleading information to peace officer];
(m) a court order made under section 68 (1) [court order to prohibit possession];
(n) section 75 [prohibition against providing false or misleading information about low-velocity firearms];
(o) section 76 [prohibition against producing false or misleading identification];
(p) section 77 [prohibition against producing false or misleading federal licence or authorization].
(2) Unless subsection (3) applies, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable,
(a) if the person is an individual, to one or both of the following:
(i) a fine of not more than $5 000;
(ii) imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or
(b) if the person is not an individual, to a fine of not more than $100 000.
(3) If a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) has, within the previous 5 years, committed the same offence or another offence under that subsection, the person is liable,
(a) if the person is an individual, to one or both of the following:
(i) a fine of not more than $7 500;
(ii) imprisonment for not more than 18 months, or
(b) if the person is not an individual, to a fine of not more than $200 000.]
Amendment approved.
Clause 65 as amended approved.
On clause 80.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment of clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 80, by adding the underlined text as shown:
Regulations in relation to firearms and imitation firearms
80 (1) For the purposes of section 10 (3) [exemptions for designated officials and prescribed exemptions], the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations establishing full or partial exemptions in relation to a prohibition or requirement under any of the following:
(a) section 3 [prohibition against using, transporting, carrying or storing firearm in unsafe manner];
(b) section 4 [prohibition and requirement respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or boat];
(c) section 5 (1) [prohibition against discharging firearm from vehicle or boat];
(d) section 6 (2) [prohibition against operating vehicle if certain firearms, ammunition or devices in vehicle];
(e) section 8 (2) [prohibition against causing public disturbance with low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm];
(f) section 9 (2) [prohibition against possessing low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm if subject to federal prohibition].
(2) A regulation under subsection (1) may do any of the following:
(a) specify purposes for which or circumstances in which an exemption applies;
(b) establish criteria, conditions, requirements or obligations that must be met or complied with in relation to an exemption;
(c) specify how a person or entity may or must prove or establish that an exemption applies.]
Amendment approved.
Clause 80 as amended approved.
On clause 86.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 86, by adding the underlined text as shown:
Wildlife Act transition
86 (1) In this section:
“effective date” means the date on which section 87 of this Act comes into force;
“former Act” means the Firearm Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 145;
“pre-existing permit” means a permit under the Wildlife Act that
(a) exists immediately before the effective date, and
(b) exempts a person from a requirement under section 9 (1) [offence] of the former Act.
(2) A reference in a pre-existing permit to an exemption from a requirement under section 9 of the former Act is deemed to be a reference to an exemption from the corresponding requirement under any of the following provisions of this Act:
(a) section 4 [prohibition and requirement respecting firearm or imitation firearm in vehicle or boat];
(b) section 5 (1) [prohibition against discharging firearm from vehicle or boat].
(3) Section 24 (8) (d) [suspension and cancellation of licences] of the Wildlife Act, as it read immediately before its repeal by section 96 of this Act, applies in respect of a person who
(a) is alleged to have committed, before the effective date, an offence under section 3 [exercise of care for safety of others] of the former Act, and
(b) is convicted, after the effective date, of the offence referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(4) Section 85 (1) (a) [failure to pay fine] of the Wildlife Act, as it read immediately before its amendment by section 98 of this Act, applies in respect of a person who, on the effective date, has not yet paid a fine imposed as a result of the person’s conviction, before the effective date, for an offence under the former Act.]
Amendment approved.
Clause 86 as amended approved.
On clause 94.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 94, by adding the underlined text as shown:
94 Section 83 (2) (c) is repealed and the following substituted:
(c) section 3, 4 or 5 (1) of the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, .]
Amendment approved.
Clause 94 as amended approved.
On clause 95.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 95, by adding the underlined text as shown:
95 Section 19 (3) of the Wildlife Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 488, is repealed and the following substituted:
(3) If a regional manager issues a permit respecting the use of firearms, the regional manager may
(a) exempt a person from section 4 or 5 (1), in whole or in part, of the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, and
(b) specify the conveyance or type of conveyance to which the permit is limited.]
Amendment approved.
Clause 95 as amended approved.
On clause 101.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
[CLAUSE 101, by adding the underlined text as shown:
101 Section 108 (3) is amended by adding the following paragraph:
(d.1) in respect of a regulation under paragraph (d) of this subsection, exempting a person from section 4 or 5 (1), in whole or in part, of the Firearm Violence Prevention Act; .]
Amendment approved.
Clause 101 as amended approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move an amendment to a cross-reference as a consequence to the amendment to clause 5 adopted earlier.
The Chair: Thank you, Members. We don’t need to amend anything. We’ve finished the 101. The script took us a little further than we needed to go. We’re now moving on to the title.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank members for their contributions during this committee stage debate.
With that, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 4 complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:17 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
BILL 4 — FIREARM VIOLENCE
PREVENTION
ACT
Bill 4, Firearm Violence Prevention Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 10.
P. Milobar: With the fast movement of that bill, if we could have a couple of minutes of recess to find our speaker who still has the floor, that would be appreciated.
Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.
The House recessed from 11:20 a.m. to 11:28 a.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021
(continued)
A. Wilkinson: A pleasure to be here.
Now, continuing on Bill 10 — this is a supply act, of course — which provides for $13.4 billion of spending, with no outline of what that spending will consist of and no understanding, for this House, of how it came to be or why it is required. Apparently, it is to continue the budget of last spring, which was brought in shortly before COVID occurred. In the words of the Premier himself, it became essentially meaningless as soon as it had been passed.
We have no guidelines as to why this budget is being presented now. We have no guidelines as to what it will be spent on. To add insult to injury, we see that section 1 says that it legally deems last year’s estimates to be the estimates for 2021, thereby exempting $13.4 billion under section 23 of the Financial Administration Act. Of course, that section states: “A sum appropriated by a Supply Act must not be spent for any purpose other than those described in the estimates of revenue and expenditure….”
We don’t have any estimates of revenue and expenditure. We have no idea what this money will be spent for. When my remarks were truncated the other day, by the end of the day, we had heard from the minister of state from Stikine that we were not to worry; there were only 30 more sleeps. I absorbed that description and thought: what a dismissive, disparaging way to talk to the people of British Columbia.
That $13.4 billion is $2,680 for every single human being in this province. In my family of five, that’s $13,400. The Minister of Finance apparently bumped into us on the street corner and said: “Oh, by the way, could you just give me $13,400?” The obvious question from any British Columbian would be: “What for?” The answer from the Finance Ministry and from this government is: “Well, that’s none of your business.” Well, do we have a Legislature where questions can be asked? “Oh, not about this. This is immune from questioning. This is immune from scrutiny. We’ll just spend it however we see fit.”
The reaction from me, as a taxpayer, and from anyone on the street corner or in a Tim Hortons, any location in this province, would be: “Don’t be ridiculous. You want me to volunteer $2,680 to you, or for my family of three, $8,000? The answer is no, unless I know what you’re going to spend it on, unless I know what you’re going to do with it.”
This is the very reason why there was a huge cleanup in public finances back in 2001, to require balanced budget legislation, to require fixed budget dates, to cement in the use of an Economic Forecast Council, to give credibility to British Columbia’s finances again, after it had been shredded by this very NDP government in the late 1990s. Our financial credibility was shot to pieces, with falsified budgets, with unconventional accounting practices and with massive overspending and use of special warrants on a regular basis. Steps were taken to clean up British Columbia’s credibility and to make sure that we had credible finances once again.
Transparent fiscal management is the hallmark of modern government. Everything should be available online so that any citizen, any auditor, any lender can look at it and say: “Ah, I see the state of British Columbia’s finances.” That is going out the window with this bill. It’s just a sign of how high-handed this government has become very quickly, in terms of its attitude to public accountability.
We saw this further, just before the election, with $1.5 billion in recovery spending that was left untouched until the week before the election. Then it was launched as the StrongerBC plan with an elaborate ad campaign. We still don’t have a full accounting of what that was about. We still don’t know where that money was going. We take the example of the small business grants.
The last year has laid waste to our tourism sector. The art sector’s revenues have collapsed to near zero. Airlines have virtually shut down, with massive losses and a huge loss of employment. The hotel sector is on its back. We all sit here in Victoria and know that the Empress Hotel has sat empty for six months, completely shut down. All of those employees are unemployed.
So what happens? This government comes up with a grant program of $345 million six months ago. We’re near the end of the fiscal year. It happens in two weeks. The fiscal year is over. How much of that money has been invested in the future and in the recovery of British Columbians? Well, the minister announced yesterday it was $87 million. Less than a quarter of the funds allocated have actually been invested in British Columbians.
We extended good faith towards this government, both the Green Party and ourselves, throughout 2020 to deal with the pandemic and what we described then as a near-wartime economy. This is how we have been treated and how the people of British Columbia have been treated — with a disrespect, in terms of how they are allowed to recover from this pandemic and how their finances are going to be treated by this government.
This is not a piggy bank for the NDP. These are public funds that have to be invested for public works, in the public interest. That’s why most of us got elected — to make sure that the public interest is served. This is by no means serving any public interest, with a secretive expenditure of $450 million for every one of those 30 sleeps that the minister of state talks about.
This is shameful — that the NDP members can sit on their side of the House and grin and say: “Don’t worry about it. Just support us.” Support what? What is it that you’re planning to do? Tell us what the plan is. Tell the people of British Columbia what the plan is. Then you might earn some respect and some credibility. Instead, you’re busy burning that credibility by acting in this high-handed and dismissive way.
We have to remember that these businesses that are in so much trouble are not Fairmont Hotels. It’s not Air Canada that’s going to be in trouble as a result of this. It’s when we walk down the high streets of our cities and towns.
Whether you walk through the streets of Trail, up Government Street here in Victoria, on Broadway in Vancouver, on Victoria Street in Kamloops, Bernard Street in Kelowna, or through central Nanaimo, one business after another is empty. The for-lease signs have proliferated. The for-lease signs are put up on top of the “50 Percent Off” and “Everything Must Go” signs.
People have literally just walked away, sometimes leaving inventory in the stores. They don’t even bother to paper up the windows. These shops are just abandoned as they were. This is where we are now, and this is what cries out for government to get its act together and support these failing businesses.
It’s, of course, hard for the NDP to come out and say what they appear to be doing, which is a Darwinian approach to business. “Ah, a bunch of them are going to fail anyway. We’ll just watch them collapse.” Government exists in Canada to make life better for people, to help people through hard times. The NDP are chronically parroting how…. They like to say that they protect the most vulnerable people, when in fact, these small businesses are sinking out of sight and drowning right in front of us.
When it comes to what government is supposed to deliver, what this $13 billion could be used for, $450 million a day, close to $20 million an hour for the next 30 days…. What could it be used for? Well, let’s look at the Vancouver Coastal website. Yesterday it said, when you go to the vaccine sign-up page: “We deeply apologize to seniors and families for the poor experience many received…and for not meeting your expectations.” That’s 13 months into this pandemic.
We all remember on March 11, when it was declared. We all remember coming back on March 16, when the buildings were empty, when we’d all gone home. That’s one year ago, and the planning horizon for a website was 12 months. The only one that got going was Fraser Health. That is a colossal failure on the part of this government in terms of serving the people of British Columbia.
We’ve heard this week, in these halls, of 94-year-olds who are still trying to get through on the phone lines. Is that serving frail, elderly people, by just leaving them hanging on phone calls for hours and hours, day after day, when they’re worried sick about their health? That is unacceptable, yet have we heard any kind of plan to remedy that? No. There are still no websites, except Fraser. It’s still a phone-in system.
We’ve heard from other provinces that they’re miles ahead of British Columbia in vaccination rollout — Alberta and Ontario, most particularly. Needless to say, the comparison with Washington state and Alaska is dramatic. British Columbia is dead last in this race amongst the neighbouring jurisdictions. Part of that is because this government couldn’t figure out that it needed a registration website over a one-year period. Here they come along, asking for $13.4 billion for goodness knows what. How can we trust this government to look out for the public interest when that’s the record?
There’s another area which is fundamental to what this government does in British Columbia. No matter who’s in office, health care and education are our core functions. That’s the essence of why we’re here. I received an email just this morning from a parent in Vancouver, saying that their four children in high school are adrift. They’ve had 1.75 hours of instruction this year.
The surrounding districts — he sent me a chart, and we validated this elsewhere: West Vancouver, full-time high school; North Vancouver, full-time high school; Burnaby, full-time high school; Richmond, full-time high school; Surrey, full-time high school; francophone school district, full-time high school; New Westminster, 80 percent of hours. They have constraints, so that’s a pretty good result in terms of anything short of full-time. Vancouver school board, 1.75 hours a day, to be increased to 2.75 hours a day.
The insult added to the injury was that families in my riding in the city of Vancouver were sent a letter from Vancouver school board on March 11, which said that effective April 26, 2021, in-person learning will go up to two hours and 45 minutes for grades 8 and 9 and to two hours and 45 minutes two days a week for grade 10. That’s it, 18,000 students left adrift. No sports, no social activity, no meeting their friends, no school, nothing to do. This is shameful.
The real insult comes in bullet 4. Effective April 26, 2021, the Vancouver school board would allow any student wanting to attend school all day to do so. Sounds great. We can all go back to school. We can get educated. We can see our friends. We can have something to do, other than sitting around all morning waiting for afternoon school.
The joke is on the students and the parents, because guess what that consists of. You can go in the morning, whether it’s math or English or whatever, and then you’ll do exactly the same program in the afternoon for a second time. That is an insult, and it is a complete betrayal of the public trust we put into the K-to-12 education system.
It does not affect Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey, North Vancouver or West Vancouver. It is only the city of Vancouver. It is only the students in my riding and ten others. It is only those 18,000 students who have been left adrift and watching as their mental health deteriorates.
We are hearing this in abundance from parents and students, that they’re depressed, that they’re miserable. They’re wondering if, in grade 11 and 12, they’re going to get into the college or university programs they’ve been dreaming of. Their lives are being scuttled by this government’s inaction with the Vancouver school board. This is shameful.
This is what the public trust consists of, looking out for our most vulnerable. That’s why all of us went into elected office. These 18,000 students, who can’t speak for themselves, have just been dumped in the gutter. This is unacceptable, and we will continue to push this point until this government takes the action it needs to press the Vancouver school board to actually deliver the statutorily required 22½ hours a week. It’s written into the education act. VSB chooses to flagrantly violate that act, and this government has done nothing to address it.
Now we vote on $13.4 billion for we’re not sure what. What will change? What will be the goals? What are the outcomes for this spending plan? What are our objectives? Will we know when we get there? Will these concerns be dealt with, or will it just be swept under the rug? Will we have a proper website in Vancouver Coastal Health? Surely, out of $13.4 billion, someone can build a proper website.
Or will we just have more of the same — concerns being dismissed, frail elderly and students being completely disappointed and blown off? What is the purpose of having such a large spending budget? Where is the accountability? When will we find out what it’s for? Apparently we never will. “Just trust me,” say the Premier and the Finance Minister.
This goes to the very integrity of our system. It’s why all those statutes were passed 20 years ago to make sure that our budgets are clear and transparent. It has been now completely dismissed by this NDP government.
I bring that back to every member in this House. Why did we get elected? To look out for the people who need our help; to build a future based on our strengths and our competitive advantages; to build up our small businesses, our resource industries, our biotech, our software, our tourism; to be the very best that we can be.
We have accepted a public trust that comes with an enormous burden, to serve the public interest. This bill does the exact opposite. This bill requires votes against. This is not an acceptable method of running the finances of the province. It is undemocratic, and it needs to be opposed at every possible turn.
Perhaps we should suggest an amendment and change the title from Bill 10, Supply Act, to the “Blank cheque and abuse of public trust act.” That’s exactly what this is, a blank cheque that is a flagrant abuse of the role of government.
Perhaps, in this unfortunate process, there will be some kind of conclusion, some learning, some improvement of performance where this House will learn that it’s not about power. It’s about public service. That’s what makes you proud at the end of the day. That’s what lets you look in the mirror on your way home and say: “I did good work today because I served the public interest.” It should not be about what you can get away with. It’s about what you can be proud of.
Sadly, I return to the minister of state’s remarks that we should just let everything go. We should trust them. We should work with them. Certainly not what he did in Ottawa for 14 years — exactly the opposite, actually. But the idea that somehow we should just roll over and accept this one-page bill that ignores our democratic process — that has no objectives, no goals, no understood purpose other than power for the NDP — is completely unacceptable.
You can be assured that I and my colleagues will be voting against it and making as much noise as we can to find out what an abuse of the public process this is, and how, for the students of Vancouver, for those frail elderly folks who are still on the phone, this has been a failed government since the election. And if this is how we’re going to conduct the business of the province, this is a failure of the NDP as an elected government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure if you would prefer that I suggest that debate be adjourned or if you want to carry on for a few minutes.
Deputy Speaker: We’ve got some time. I think we can continue on.
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the Finance Minister for tabling this bill, which is….
We’ve seen it many times from both governments. Usually, it is not the subject of hyper-partisan hyperbole, but it has been this time. The reason for that is that the budget was delayed so that the Finance Minister could incorporate all of the impacts of the pandemic, as well as our responses, so that there could be debate on as reliable a budget as we can put forward in these exceptional times.
For the opposition to complain about the idea that — in a time where government revenues have been dramatically impacted by the COVID pandemic, where businesses and individuals across the province are profoundly affected financially — we would take a little bit more time in order to make sure that the budget that’s put in front of the members of this House is as accurate and projects as best as possible what we’re going to do, how we’re going to respond and what the impacts of the pandemic have been….
To pretend that this is an elaborate attempt at some kind of trick, when we have these interim supply bills literally every time there’s a budget that goes past the end of a financial year, is a bit much.
I accept absolutely their right to want a budget earlier. That’s fine. But the reason for the delay in the budget is to assist the opposition and the public in understanding the state of the public finances and what we’re going to do. There are no tricks here. It’s quite clear.
The one thing I do take exception to is the pretending — the sort of high-handed posturing of the opposition that, oh, in their time, they were such wonderful financial managers, and they presided over such transparency in relation to budgets, that the government should take lessons from them about their instructive model that they put forward.
Let me just remind members about the tricks and games and garbage that was put in front of the public in the form of B.C. Liberal budgets and projections for Crown corporations. Just a highlight reel, noting where we are on the time.
ICBC, right? The Crown corporation is hemorrhaging money before the election. What do we do? Oh, we book the sale of headquarters, even though it hasn’t even been listed for sale. We book the sale of icbc.com, the URL, to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, even though it hasn’t been sold.
Little Mountain, a housing development, a functioning community full of low-income people — a beautiful community, people working together and living together — sold off, bulldozed with no replacement housing so that the government could book the sale and claim a balanced budget. Unacceptable.
B.C. Hydro. Massive deferral accounts — massive — to hide the cost overruns of that corporation, criticized extensively by the Auditor General.
B.C. Lottery Corp. Booking proceeds made by taking dirty money that turns out everybody knew — in government at the time, the B.C. Liberal government — was dirty. But they kept taking the money because they were worried about losing the revenues.
If you’re taking dirty money, if you’re bulldozing low-income communities, if you’re pretending that our Crown corporations are solvent when they’re not, if you’re creating deferral accounts that are going to impact ratepayers for decades because you’ve given away money to your donors through these run-of-river projects where you’re paying an outrageous rate for hydro that we don’t need that we’re selling at a loss, then you come to this place, like the Leader of the Opposition, and you say, “We were paragons of transparency around our budgets….” Are you kidding me? And on a bill that has happened….
Every time there’s a budget, we go past the end of the fiscal year with supply. It pays for schools. It pays for hospitals. It pays for supports in housing. It pays for social housing. It pays for everything that makes the province run.
We see gamesmanship around supply bills in the United States. How does that end up? Government workers go unpaid. Essential services are shuttered. The only people who hurt are the people in the communities that don’t get those services. Nothing is gained by it.
I regret very much seeing gamesmanship about what is traditionally a non-controversial matter of course for the business of government to allow full debate in the estimates on the budget. I regret putting forward a budget that is complete and accurate to this House and the public so they can understand the impacts of the pandemic and how their government is going to respond being characterized as tricks around the budget.
I cannot abide the idea of being lectured by the opposition about transparency in relation to budgets after all the garbage they put British Columbians through — the massive auto insurance increases, the bulldozing of the Little Mountain community, the escalating hydro rates. Unacceptable.
Now, I will note that, although tangentially related to the bill, the Leader of the Opposition discussed the incredibly terrible situation faced by parents of high school students in Vancouver and the need for additional instructional hours. I’m glad to hear the member speaking out on that issue. Vancouver MLAs hosted a town hall on that issue exactly.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Very grateful for teachers and the staff in our high schools in Vancouver working through the pandemic and grateful for the work they do, and because their work is so important to families and to students, we’re really encouraging the school board to increase that instructional time.
Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.