Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 80
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 | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2021
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: T. Wat.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
NATIONAL INDIGENOUS HISTORY MONTH
AND BURIAL SITE OF
CHILDREN AT
KAMLOOPS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
P. Milobar: I rise today to recognize the start of National Indigenous History Month. This is a month where we reflect, acknowledge and advocate for important issues affecting First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples across our country.
Of course, today I share these remarks with a heavy heart on behalf of a community that has been shaken by the most tragic and hurtful of discoveries. As we all know and as was well discussed yesterday, last week on the former site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, the remains of 215 lost children were finally found. Last night in the drum circle, the arbour for the powwow grounds of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc was full of people showing their support for the Tk’emlúps. That was very nice to see — the outpouring of support from across the region, trying to shed some support on such a tragic discovery.
Some of the remains that have been discovered are estimated to be as young as three years old. None of us can fathom the thought of children being ripped from their families and taken to these schools. Again, it’s a devastating reminder of the suffering, and it’s truly unbearable to think about.
While this discovery was shocking to all British Columbians, it was something that was already known in the hearts of many in the Tk’emlúps community and the area bands. The state-of-the-art technology that was able to find these remains will be critical in the next steps moving forward.
For many, this has triggered painful memories of their own families’ experiences during this dark time in our history. Our hearts go out to all those affected, especially the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc people, who are shouldering this burden of making sure that the remains are dealt with in a respectful way. It’s my hope that this discovery will bring them some closure and some peace.
It’s incumbent on all of us to reflect on each of these lives lost and on the treatment that they and their families endured, especially given that this is the start of National Indigenous History Month.
WORLD MILK DAY
AND B.C. DAIRY
FARMERS
M. Dykeman: It’s an honour to rise in this House today to speak about World Milk Day, which is celebrated on June 1 every year. It’s a day to raise awareness about the health benefits of milk and a tribute to the farmers who work hard, day and night, in the dairy industry.
As our province has dealt with the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, dairy farmers — and, indeed, all farmers — have remained steadfast in a time of unrest, in their commitment to produce locally grown foods for our communities and contributing to B.C.’s food security. Dairy farmers who are very community-minded stepped up to feed people in need over this time, to provide much-needed dairy products and other food staples to families throughout the province. B.C. dairy farmers distributed 40,000 litres of milk to 25 food banks, as well as donations totalling over $200,000 to 70 food banks across B.C. for the purchase of dairy products and other needed staples.
In an effort to support the hospitality sector and help vulnerable families, dairy farmers partnered with the Breakfast Clubs of Canada and 32 local restaurants to provide vulnerable children a healthy breakfast. One meal was donated to the Breakfast Clubs of Canada for every purchase of a breakfast from participating restaurants, totalling about 17,000 meals worth approximately $52,000.
Dairy farmers also contribute, in partnership with the B.C. Ministry of Health, to ensure approximately 780 schools receive fresh, local milk for their kindergarten-to-grade-5 students. Their nutritional programs, as a whole, support over 1,400 schools, and in 2019 and 2020, fed over half a million students.
B.C. dairy farms are also committed environmental partners and have reduced their carbon footprint by 7 percent since 2011.
Thank you to the B.C. dairy farmers and all farmers who are vital in helping us get through this pandemic and helping restart the B.C. economy.
PRIDE MONTH AND LGBTQ2S+ RIGHTS
T. Halford: I rise today in recognition of the beginning of international Pride Month, as we celebrate B.C.’s LGBTQ2+ community. It has been a long fight for equal rights for members of the LGBTQ2+ community in this province and country. It was only in 1999 that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples’ equality.
Since that time, many governments across Canada have embarked on programs of legislative reform. Adoption rights, inheritance, spousal support — these and many other rights, previously reserved for heterosexuals, were gradually being extended to same-sex couples. It was finally in July 2005 that the federal Civil Marriage Act came into force, making same-sex marriage legal across Canada.
Today members of the LGBTQ2+ community still face social discrimination, hatred, homophobia, transphobia and biphobia. Sadly, there are too many instances of hate towards this community in B.C. Having untold impacts, often on their mental health, means that we must all fight to end discrimination and intolerance in our communities.
It is my firm and unwavering belief that regardless of how someone identifies, they should have free and equal rights in our society. Further strides for inclusion must be made. As a community, we must all work together to make sure that happens.
Whether someone is queer, transgender, non-conforming, two-spirit, intersex, asexual — none of this should impact their ability to be welcomed in B.C., find employment, access education and have the right to a high quality of life free of discrimination. B.C. at its best is when we achieve inclusiveness, a province where everyone is free to be their most authentic selves.
SMALL BUSINESS RECOVERY GRANT
PROGRAM AND WORK OF PAUL
GREWAL
M. Starchuk: As we all know, during the pandemic, many businesses have been hit hard financially. Today as I stand in the House, I’m going to talk about one business in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale that has assisted many businesses in attaining funding from the small business grant program.
HWG, Chartered Professional Accountants, has been around since 1971, and Paul Grewal is an integral part of this company. Once registered with Small Business B.C., Paul was able to assist 29 business owners in navigating the grant process.
Specifically, in the manufacturing sector, there were two successful applicants, receiving $20,000. In the film sector, there were three successful applicants, receiving $75,000 of grant funding. There were seven restaurants that received a total of $140,000 in grant funding. In the transportation sector, which includes truckers, taxi and limousine owners, they had 15 successful applicants who collectively received $235,000 of grant funding, of which 11 were from the taxi industry. There’s one farm application in process for $10,000, and one supermarket application in progress for another $15,000.
We’ve heard how difficult it is for some businesses to access the funds of this program. But when I look at the successes in my riding and how easy Paul Grewal has made it for 29 business owners, I don’t see it as difficult at all. In fact, I see the opposite.
If I put my grade 4 arithmetic skills to the test, thanks to Paul of HWG, there’s been a total of $470,000 in grant funding to these 27 businesses and $25,000 pending for businesses coming.
The small business grant program created by the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation has been a success to many British Columbians and has been a definite success to those in my riding.
WORLD MILK DAY
AND B.C. DAIRY
FARMERS
I. Paton: Well, here’s a quiz for everyone. What noble profession requires a routine of getting up at 4:30 a.m. — every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year — milking cows at 5 a.m., then again at 5 p.m. while, in between your 14-hour day, you’re feeding, cleaning, planting, harvesting and taking on the de facto roles of a veterinarian, a mechanic and an environmentalist? Well, you’d be correct if you guessed a dairy farmer. I only know too well this lifestyle, as I lived it for a good part of my life.
Today is World Milk Day, established by the UN to raise awareness of dairy’s role in healthy diets, responsible food production and supporting family farming livelihoods. The voice of this industry in our province is the B.C. Dairy Association, which represents just under 500 dairy farms in British Columbia. B.C.’s dairy producers represent the third-largest dairy-producing province in Canada. The industry is primarily operated by multigenerational family farmers. B.C.’s dairy farmers strive every day to produce top-quality milk while practising sustainable farming and strong animal welfare practices, as set out in the code of practice for care and handling of dairy cattle.
When you drink milk, you support local farming families, jobs and communities and the economy of Canada. B.C. dairy is one of the few industries in B.C. that is truly farm-to-table. During COVID-19, our food supply chain has been tested. The system bent, but it did not break. We have seen throughout this past year that people throughout the province increasingly value stable local food supply chains. Farms are part of the history of this province, a strong and steady driver in our present-day local food production and undoubtedly an area of growth for our economy, moving forward.
As I always say, if you ate today, thank a farmer. So let’s raise a glass of milk today to dairy farmers, who work hard to feed our communities and supply our schools, our hospitals and our restaurants with a nutritious local product that is produced on family farms here in B.C.
SECONDARY SCHOOL GRADUATES
DURING
COVID-19
J. Sims: Many young British Columbians are closing a chapter and graduating from secondary school. This was not the grade 12 year they imagined, and this is not the graduation they dreamed of. But here we are. This pandemic year has been both challenging and has provided unimaginable memories and experiences.
Like other events in our lives, graduation this year will be different. Our students are resilient, courageous, optimistic. Terms like cohorts, hybrid learning, virtual lessons, virtual socializing are second nature to them. This year grad celebrations will be in small groups — social distancing, masks and all of the health protocols.
To grads: I would encourage you to cherish your moment and celebrate your successes. Your graduation may be nothing like you imagined, but you have reached this milestone. You will walk across the stage. You will be handed your diploma. Your family and friends and teachers will be there cheering for you, many virtually.
I rise today in this House to congratulate all students as they step into the next stage of their life journey. Congratulations to the 2021 graduating classes of Sullivan Heights, École Panorama, Regent Christian Academy and all of the other graduates across our province. Congratulations to the teachers and the parents and family members who have been a tireless support. You all did it.
Students, you did it fearlessly. You rose to the challenge, and you did it in a pandemic. Go into the world, live your dreams and, more importantly, go and build a more just and inclusive world for every person. Congratulations. Great journey.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
OPIOID CRISIS AND MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTION SERVICES
S. Bond: The numbers are staggering. This time it’s 176 overdose deaths in the month of April. The worst April ever — nearly six deaths every single day. This is a 43 percent increase over last year.
Overdose deaths continue to shatter records every single month, yet month after month, we get the same words from this Premier.
Can the Premier tell us today exactly what steps he has taken since last month to begin to reverse this deadly trend?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. That these tragic spikes are happening across the country is a tragedy to all the families that have lost loved ones and to everybody that’s worked so hard on the front lines to save lives, fighting two public health emergencies at the same time.
I absolutely had hoped the coroner’s numbers would be lower, would represent a decrease in lives lost to a toxic drug supply. It is another setback, particularly for those working on the street to save lives. The peers I think of particularly who are losing community members…. But everybody in the province: I’m so sorry.
We have an expanded, in every way, overdose response. What might have been, had we not had these measures in place when the pandemic hit, we will not know. Although we do know that in the year 2019, the measures British Columbia had brought into place — doubling the number of supervised consumption sites, introducing or expanding access to medication-assisted treatment, expanded access to naloxone — had brought down overdose deaths for the first time since the public health emergency was declared.
I would say, to the member’s question, we are continuing to expand our overdose response in every way. There are more nurse prescribers being trained. There are more people taking up safer supply or continuing to have conversations with the federal government to grant the section 56 exemption to decriminalize simple possession of illicit drugs as a way to combat stigma.
But most significantly, our budget contribution. Historic investment in mental health and addictions is the big change from last month’s coroner’s report. Half a billion dollars is more than this province has ever spent. It’s going to have impact, and working together, we can save lives.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: The minister doesn’t have to stop and think about what might have been. She needs to stop and think about what is, month after month, in British Columbia. Hope is not enough. Words are not enough. The Premier stands up and continually talks about working together but then rejects the opportunity to do just that.
Recently the opposition leaders each wrote separate letters to the Premier, proposing different ways we could work together on this absolutely critical issue. We could work together. Two separate proposals. And the Premier’s response was no. Not only that, he didn’t even respond personally to either leader of the opposition. He delegated that to his minister to say no.
People are dying. People are dying across British Columbia. It doesn’t matter if they live in Vancouver or whether they live in the northeast or the Cariboo, the Thompson or northern Vancouver Island. We offered to work together on this issue.
Interjection.
S. Bond: The minister can be as chirpy as he wants about this. It is devastating what is going on in British Columbia, and it is time for this government to stand up, work together with the opposition parties and actually do something.
More than half of the deaths are occurring in private residences. What are needed more than ever are affordable and accessible treatment options.
The Premier has an opportunity today to stand up and take immediate steps to ensure that those living with addictions will get the help they need, not based on their ability to pay but based solely on their need for treatment.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: We are the only province in Canada significantly scaling up our response to the overdose crisis. Again, for anybody listening who hasn’t heard this already, the illicit street drug supply is increasingly toxic. That is something borne out in the coroner’s reports. That more people are staying home, using alone, also has led to a terrible surge in overdose deaths.
To those who have lost loved ones, family members, team members, I’m so sorry. We are expanding, in every way, more treatment beds. We just added 100 new publicly funded treatment beds in every health authority across the province. Most of them are up and operating now. We’re in the process of doubling the number of youth treatment beds, 123 more. Again, that will be in every health authority in the province. This is an unprecedented expansion.
Absolutely, there is more to do. I am grateful for the member’s support. The solutions that we are pursuing are coming from the grass roots, from the front line of those in the health care system, working to end the overdose crisis. We will continue to draw our lessons from people that are in the field, led by our overdose response centre. I’m grateful for everybody’s work in this regard.
T. Halford: Guy Felicella is a well-known harm reduction and recovery addict in Vancouver. As he said just yesterday: “We talk about solutions to the overdose crisis but never see them attached. The result: it just continues to worsen. With COVID-19, we see an immediate response. Not all public health emergencies are equal.”
It was the worst April on record. The death rate is six a day. It’s striking people all across the province. The words from this government, from this Premier, from this minister are not cutting it. Unfortunately, we are seeing the results, month after month.
My question is to the Premier. Will he take action, will he help the people right now, and will he fund the support that people need and they deserve?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The answer is yes. There has never been more funding put into overdose response. There has never been such an expansion of services. We have, a year ago, stood up safe supply just weeks into the pandemic. There’s been a 400 percent increase in the number of people taking prescribed safe supplies — a way to separate them from the tragic toxicity that’s increased during COVID. We’re the only province in Canada that’s doing this.
That we have doubled the number of overdose prevention sites since we formed government in 2017 is saving lives. There hasn’t been a single fatal overdose at a supervised consumption site. We have added already this year 100 new publicly funded treatment and recovery beds. We are doubling youth treatment beds.
Unprecedented in British Columbia’s history is that in this Budget 2021, an unprecedented half a billion dollars is going into mental health and addictions. One of the things that it will fund is another 195 publicly funded treatment beds.
Is there more to do? Absolutely. Is the loss of life tragic and heartbreaking? Absolutely. I’m appreciative of the support across the aisle for our budget and for our efforts. We will continue to work hard with all parties on the ground to expand supports and save lives.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Halford: To the minister’s last point, the letter that we received from the Premier completely contradicts the sentiments that the minister just expressed.
There has never been a worse increase in overdose deaths than what we’re seeing right now. Addictions are killing British Columbians. People are reaching out, and they are trying to get help, but one of the things that is standing in the way of that help is affordability. They have to choose between food, supporting their families or getting help. That’s wrong.
We’ve asked before, and with a record month for deaths, we’ll ask again. Will the Premier commit to investing a seamless mental health and addictions system that eliminates barriers and ensures people get the help they need, when they need it?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The answer is yes. That’s the work that we’re doing. That’s the work laid out by my predecessor — the first in Canada. Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Judy Darcy worked with British Columbians across the province. That is where we’re getting our wisdom on this work to build a pathway to hope.
As Dr. Bonnie Henry said, when we formed government in 2017, there was no system of care for mental health and addictions. So we are working hard every day to build it up, while now fighting two public health emergencies. The investments that we’ve made to date are unprecedented, and they are not enough. That lives are still being lost is testament to the work that continues to be necessary, the work that we continue to be committed to.
If the solutions were in this Legislature or in committees, I think we would have this solved already. But the toxicity of the drug supply is killing people every day in every corner of the continent. It is a tragedy that we are working hard every day to overcome.
SUPPORT FOR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
SURVIVORS AND
FAMILIES
A. Olsen: Yesterday in my response to the ministerial statement about the Kamloops Residential School, I noted the impact of provincial and federal government policies to dispossess Indigenous people of their lands and resources. In my riding, the list is exhaustive. Victoria airport lands were taken as part of the war effort. The W̱SÁNEĆ were told those lands would be used for an airfield and returned following the war. Decades later they're engaged in a seemingly endless frustration with local authorities and the federal government.
James Island is another example of land that was dispossessed for the war effort with promises of return. Now a billionaire American owner has applied to subdivide the island, and an approving officer in the Ministry of Transportation must decide if that subdivision is in the public interest. Tsawout Chief Nick Claxton, the Islands Trust and Central Saanich have all stated that it is not in the public interest. I can assure this chamber that it is most certainly not in the public interest.
In both these cases, Crown governments are all too happy to collect the wealth from the dispossession of Indigenous lands — but sharing that wealth, not so much.
To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, yesterday I highlighted several ways that the provincial government could immediately act. If the answer is nothing, please just tell us, because I heard Minister Carolyn Bennett try to bafflegab her way through the Current interview this morning, and it was very sad.
Minister, what specific and immediate actions have been taken since last Thursday? What resources has our government put in place to support our relatives, to confront and heal from the trauma that we’re all experiencing, and the retraumatization that this experience has caused?
Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands and salute the eloquent statement that he made yesterday on this tragedy.
What specifically we are doing is what I believe Judith Sayers, president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, called on us to do. She asked for us to seek financial, emotional, spiritual and educational support from the federal government and work with the First Nations and the churches and other interested groups to address this issue.
I’ve said from the outset that it’s important for our government to work in lockstep with the Indigenous nations concerned and follow their lead. Because in each part of the province, the response to this tragedy and the emotional upset that no doubt it has triggered will be something that each nation will express on its own.
So there is no simple answer to this. But we are committed to taking those steps and working with them. I have spoken with Kúkpi7 Casimir of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc people specifically about that. I’ve spoken with other community leaders about that, and I intend tomorrow to be speaking with the First Nations Leadership Council. No doubt this issue will be front and centre. We stand ready to provide the resources of the provincial government, as requested.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
ACTIVATION OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. Reconciling the injustices at the hands of Crown governments is not a partisan effort.
We have seen that no political party in this province has proven willing or able to do what’s expected or necessary. As long as we remain divided by these two sword lengths in our effort, our work will be fragmented, and it will be fragile.
Yesterday the Premier boasted that his ministers, in his government, all have words in their mandate letters. Well, it’s necessary to remind the Premier that they are our ministers, and this is our government. As long as the Premier can stand here and try to take a victory lap when our relatives, our constituents — all the representatives here have constituents — are hurting like this, it should be evidence that the approach that’s being taken is flawed.
I was elected in 2017. I’ve been a member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs since then. British Columbians should know that that committee has never met — never met. We have the power to require witnesses, to compel testimony, to interrogate, to dig and to recommend change. However, rather than truly work collaboratively, like we’re doing in the Police Act, and that is good work that’s happening in the Police Act, this government has chosen to keep this important work to themselves and behind closed doors.
As British Columbians can now see in plain sight, there’s a lot that this committee could have been and could be doing.
To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation: when are you going to use this committee to invite all parties in this Legislature to the table, to truly contribute to the reconciliation effort that is the burden that every one of us in this House carries?
Hon. M. Rankin: I believe that my record in serving in a non-partisan capacity in this regard speaks for itself. My door is open to any member who wishes to speak on issues of this importance, because the member is entirely accurate. This is not a partisan issue in any way, shape or form. Every single member in the Legislature stood up and supported our commitment, our joint commitment, to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which is a pathway, but only one step, along this important road to reconciliation.
I will work with any member who wishes to bring to my attention issues where we can work. I’m, of course, working closely with federal ministers and others responsible to make sure we can make lasting change in this province as we deconstruct colonialism — the legacy of colonialism, which, of course, includes the cultural genocide which is the legacy of residential schools. We have a lot of work to do together. But to the member’s point specifically, that work is non-partisan. I welcome the spirit in which his question was asked.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
OPIOID CRISIS AND MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTION SERVICES
K. Kirkpatrick: I couldn’t help but listen to the minister, in her last response to my colleague here, on mental health, say that in 2017, there was no system of care in place. No system of care.
Well, I’m sure that Dr. Perry Kendall and Dr. Bonnie Henry will not appreciate that comment. The B.C. Liberal government established the B.C. Centre on Substance Use. They provided mass distribution of naloxone and substitution therapies such as Suboxone. They set up the Foundry network for youth, which I hear over and over from the current government talking about how fabulous that is. So there was a lot going on in 2017.
The minister can talk about all of the money and all of the resources that have been put in since then, but it’s obviously not working. If it was working, we would not be standing here time after time after time, talking about the deaths that we are seeing from these overdoses — from children, from adults across British Columbia. So you can applaud yourselves all you want; it is not working.
Another youth has died of an overdose death in British Columbia. This time it was a 14-year-old boy in Campbell River. We keep asking the Premier when he will take action to make the next month different.
Will the Premier take action to prevent more children from dying from overdoses in this province?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: My heart goes out to another Vancouver Island family who has lost a loved one. That we have such young people falling to the increasingly toxic drug supply is a tragedy, and I’m sorry, to their friends and family.
We are still learning what was at the root of this overdose that was reported yesterday in Campbell River. I will learn from the investigation, which will inevitably happen. This is part of the process when there is the death of a child. We’ll learn what services were offered and where the gaps are as we continue to build up our system of care.
To quote the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth, last month she said: “Government is making significant investments, but it’s on the backdrop of a system that was woefully inadequate prior.” That we don’t have the supports in place yet that are saving lives is evidenced by the number of people that are continuing to die.
The work we are doing…. Almost $97 million has just been committed to building up systems of mental health and addictions support — and substance use support for young people, in particular — is at the foundation of Pathway to Hope.
Building out integrated child and youth teams in the Comox school district to add mental health and substance use practitioners to support families and children; our budget commitment of $40 million just last month to add 350 new mental health and substance use practitioners in up to, now, 20 school districts across British Columbia, trying to get at those supports and prevent small problems from turning into big ones; and our doubling of youth treatment beds will all work towards the aim of getting young people the treatment and the support they need when and where they need it.
That’s the work that we are doing every day on the system we are trying to build.
Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano on a supplemental.
K. Kirkpatrick: The Pathway to Hope seems to be an aspirational document at this point, because it has not made the difference that needs to be made. With the tragic death of 12-year-old Allayah Thomas, the government promised “to do more and do better.” But here we are again. The supports offered by the Premier weren’t enough then, and they aren’t enough now.
Will the Premier do more and do better, so we don’t lose another youth to overdose?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: With respect to the member, I note that her party’s election platform committed only one-quarter of what our government did in the October election platform. That was a fraction of the commitment that we are putting into place, and young people are at the foundation of it.
That we are still losing lives is tragic. That we are working hard every day to build up that system of care, where there was an inadequate one before, is evidenced by the size of the historic budget commitment that we’ve made.
For anybody who’s out there that’s listening, there are supports for you. I don’t want there to be any mischaracterization that there are not supports in place. Are they keeping up with the increasingly toxic drug supply? Clearly not, and that is heartbreaking news.
If you are struggling with mental health or addictions, whether you are young or old, there are supports for you. On Vancouver Island alone, five new urgent primary care centres which offer seven-day-a-week, walk-in mental health and substance use counselling; twelve child and youth mental health clinic intakes on Vancouver Island alone. We’ve added two new Foundry centres that are available to youth, designed by and for youth. There is more. Please, if you are struggling, please reach out for help.
YOUTH ADDICTION SERVICES AND
YOUTH STABILIZATION CARE
LEGISLATION
D. Davies: Youth and families that have lost loved ones deserve action now. That’s a line that we’ve been hearing a lot of over the last few years in this chamber.
Last month the Premier was adamant that safe care legislation was coming. “We will bring back the bill…We will step in and we will help people who need help.”
When will the Premier be introducing legislation that helps parents and families?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: We’ve heard from families who have lost loved ones, have lost children, who say that stabilization following an overdose might have helped, might have saved their children’s life, might have helped connect them to the addictions treatment and mental health counselling that they needed.
That’s something that we have heard and that I continue to hear from British Columbians. We remain committed to protecting youth in the aftermath of an overdose.
The work that I’ve been focused on is building up the voluntary supports that would be in place, then, in the aftermath of an overdose. That’s a criticism that we heard from people in the movement last summer.
Mr. Speaker: Peace River North, supplemental.
D. Davies: It’s almost been a year now since the government was forced to pause Bill 22, because they had failed to do proper consultation. Indigenous leaders, in particular, rightfully called for proper consultation.
After delaying action for nearly a year, can the Premier describe the consultations that have taken place, if they are complete, and the results of the consultation?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I have continued to hear from people — Indigenous leaders, families — about their advice and views on stabilization care. We have not conducted consultation. As I’ve said every time I’ve been asked in the House, my focus, the focus of my ministry, has been on building up the voluntary supports that we heard last summer are needed, and we’ve continued to hear from families are needed.
The building up of more voluntary supports will aid those complex conversations about how to move forward with the legislation. That consultation is ahead of us. We have been working with the First Nations Health Authority about how to design those conversations in Indigenous communities and throughout the sector.
I will take the opportunity, though, just to clarify, again, that what we’re talking about is stabilization care. It is not forced treatment. It is very different from the safe care act that the opposition proposed in the past, very different from the legislation that is in place in Alberta.
This is a health care issue. Addiction is a health care issue, and the legislation that we will table in the future will reflect that. This is not a criminal issue. We will not be advancing forced treatment.
P. Milobar: Well, the question was about what consultation was done on the piece of legislation this government introduced and then pulled back because they had not consulted properly with Indigenous communities, and it’s going on a year now.
Indigenous people continue to be disproportionately represented in the overdose numbers. While accounting for just over 3 percent of B.C.’s population, almost 15 percent of all overdose deaths last year were Indigenous. First Nations women are almost ten times as likely to die from an overdose. In fact, the First Nations report that came out last week showed 254 First Nations people died last year — more than double the year before.
Again to the minister, what consultations have been taking place over the last year, and if they haven’t been taking place, why have they not been taking place? Time is wasting. First Nations need to be properly consulted on this critical issue.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The devastating losses, particularly in Indigenous communities, are felt in every corner of the province. These are our friends, our family, our community members. The report from the First Nations Health Authority summarizing the loss of life in overdose deaths just last week is devastating. It is an indictment of the racism that remains embedded within our society, our justice system and our health care system. It’s work we are determined as a government to root out.
The approach last summer around and building up to the introduction of Bill 22 was to work with the First Nations Health Authority. That is the health delivery organization that is by and for Indigenous people. We have a tripartite agreement — federal, provincial and First Nations Health Authority agreement — that directs how we will work together. When we pick up the work with stabilization care legislation, under my tenure, then it will again be with the First Nations Health Authority, and they’re helping us design that work.
We have made vital investments to support Indigenous-led responses to the overdose crisis. That includes nasal naloxone for First Nations communities’ prescribed safer supply programs through First Nations Health Authority’s virtual substance use and psychiatry services. And we are funding, with First Nations Health Authority, reconstruction of First Nations addiction treatment and recovery healing centres and also investing in their land-based healing solutions.
The only way out of this crisis is working together. I just spoke this morning with the First Nations Health Council and First Nations Health Authority about the path forward and our determination to work together.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage of Bill 10, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates on the debate of the Ministry of Labour.
Then in the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and Child Care.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 10 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 10:53 a.m.
On clause 1.
The Chair: Would the minister like to say anything, or do we go straight to the critic?
Hon. J. Osborne: I’d like to introduce the following staff that I have with me on the line today. I’ve got Tara Faganello, the assistant deputy minister, the local government division; Michelle Dann, the executive director of governance and structure branch; and Rena Bindra, the manager for policy research and legislation branch.
Just to say, I welcome the discussion and the questions today and look forward to what I think will be very productive.
D. Ashton: Just a couple quick general questions to start off with. I would, at this point in time, like to thank the minister and her staff for the availability for these questions. The minister and myself both come from local government, and we know how valuable that is and how we have, in the past, represented our communities and our regional areas to the best of our ability.
May I ask directly why this amendment bill was brought in?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite. I, too, enjoy the fact that he comes from local government and have great respect for that. It’s a privilege, of course, to stand here and to work with him and other members in this House to improve the processes that local governments undertake to provide the services that their residents and their businesses depend on. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us a lot. It’s changed our lives. It’s certainly changed the lives for local governments. They are on the front lines. They’ve been delivering those critical services that people depend on, especially during these challenging times.
A number of temporary provisions have been brought in during the pandemic to help local governments provide those services, to provide them with the tools that they need. So the purpose overall of this legislation is to make permanent some of these temporary authorities so that local governments can continue to do the good work that they’re doing.
D. Ashton: To the minister: you had mentioned temporary provisions. We know that we are facing an extraordinary issue with COVID. But has there been consultation with local governments as to the effect of the temporary measures and whether or not they should be written into a new bill?
Hon. J. Osborne: The short answer is yes. Local governments have been consulted. And of course, we rely on our partner, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, to gain a lot of that insight and knowledge, but also, having spoken directly with the city of Vancouver…. Also, Mr. Chair, I want to make sure that the member opposite understands that we’ve been hearing back from local governments all along during the pandemic. Of course, previously as the mayor of Tofino, I understand what difference these kinds of changes made during the pandemic.
Among that feedback and the feedback from other local governments, we understand not only how these temporary measures have been important and have enabled local governments to do what they need to do but also that these tools need to continue and can improve the services that they are delivering. For example, enabling mail-in voting and enabling local governments to conduct e-meetings and e-hearings is something we’ve heard very positive feedback on from some local governments, reducing the barriers to people to access local government, and again, just providing local governments with those tools that they need to improve and continue and always deliver the services that people depend on.
D. Ashton: I would agree wholeheartedly that there have been improvements that have been offered during this pandemic, and I would agree also that I would like to see some of these carry on. But I would also like to see consultation. The minister mentioned mail-in ballots. In the last snap election that was called, mail-in ballots were put out where they were a write-in.
With a bit of a smile on my face, I’ve had the opportunity to work with the Member of Parliament from this area, Dan Albas, who happens to have the same first letter — and second letter, in his last name — as myself. I get called Mr. Albas on lots of occasions, and I know that Mr. Albas gets called Mr. Ashton on lots of occasions. During that process, there were a lot of ballots that were, maybe, in some ways, trying to put Mr. Albas in the position of the MLA for this area.
I’m wholeheartedly in agreement with broadening the spectrum of allowing the people, who we are so fortunate to be able to represent, opportunities. But I also would like to hear from the minister, and possibly her staff, about where the consultation had taken place.
As we’re not through the pandemic at this point in time, are there additional ideas that have come directly either from municipalities that the minister or her staff have been involved with or through UBCM that may also be added to this bill at some point in time?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. So some more details. With respect to the mail ballot voting, we’ve issued over 30 ministerial orders during the pandemic to allow local governments to undertake by-elections or assent-voting processes. Each of these is a direct request from the local chief election officer to enable mail balloting, expanding the provisions for mail ballot voting. But in addition, we did conduct surveys out to local governments with respect to e-meetings and e-hearings.
I can say that the matters in these amendments that we’re bringing forward were what we have heard directly from local government. We are always open to hearing from local government about improvements that can be made. I welcome that and any suggestions from the members opposite in what they hear from local governments in their ridings as well.
D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister. Amendments that you had talked about and amendments to the bill…. I would ask directly, though, that…. Along with this, there is the opportunity to change by regulation or to add regulation with issues that are not covered at this point in time by the bill. Does the minister think that that’s wise?
Normally, municipalities like the city of Penticton, where I come from in the regional district, always had an order to fall back on. I would just ask about why the government is adding the opportunity to allow regulations to be added in, rather than to have everything encompassed in Bill 10 with amendments to follow in the normal due course of way, which we would handle at the Legislature.
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again for the question. With respect to the ministerial regulations, there are three occurrences here, and they are to do with elections — one on elections and two on borrowing.
These are very targeted situations. They are not open-ended. They require special circumstances. The threshold for using the authority is high, so the minister would only enact a regulation under this authority if it’s determined that those special circumstances do, indeed, exist and that tests are met — specifically, tests of proportionality and necessity.
D. Ashton: Could the minister elaborate on the special times that would be required for regulation to be brought in?
Hon. J. Osborne: So special circumstances. The special circumstances language…. It’s a pre-existing term in local government legislation. It can be found in a number of different places, such as the ministerial order making authorities in relation to elections in both the Local Government Act as well as the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act. The language is there to provide the broadest flexibility to addressing any extenuating, unforeseen or unexpected circumstances that might arise in the future.
With respect to certain kinds of situations — perhaps the member opposite is asking about too. For the ministerial order regulation-making authorities with respect to borrowing, this might be something, as I’ve mentioned in my opening comments, around how much we’ve learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and the temporary measures that were brought in to assist local governments.
What we’ve learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is that these are tools that can be useful in special circumstances, such as a flooding in a particular area or a mill closure that would impact the local revenues for a local government.
Those are just two examples of the kinds of special circumstances that might occur for that particular regulation-making authority.
D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister. Just recently we unanimously — the term is nemine contradicente, if I remember correctly — reappointed the Ombudsperson, a gentleman I have had a huge amount of respect for and been fortunate enough to work with on the Finance Committee on numerous occasions.
The Ombudsperson had concerns with the Ministerial Order 139, which was later replaced by 192, which continues to be in effect today. Mr. Chalke is concerned that the Ministerial Order 192 still suspends or amends B.C. statutes. The minister does not have the authority, even in an emergency. As we know, some of the amendments in this bill arise from Ministerial Order 192. What is the minister’s response to the Ombudsperson’s ongoing concerns, considering that this order will remain in effect until COVID-19 emergency authorities are lifted?
Again, I ask the minister wholeheartedly. These are uncertain times. But again, we as government have put a lot of faith behind the Ombudsperson, and I’m just curious how the ministry is dealing with his concerns.
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question and for bringing up the Ombudsperson’s report.
I just want to clearly state and remind the member that in July 2020, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act was passed by this Legislative Assembly. Among other things, CRMA amended the EPA to elevate to cabinet the ability to suspend or modify provisions of other statutes during a declared state of emergency. So all ministerial orders that were made under the EPA in relation to the pandemic up to that point, including M139, then became COVID-19 provisions under CRMA, which are provisions of the act itself.
Fundamentally, I will say too that government disagrees with the Ombudsperson’s conclusion that some EPA ministerial orders did not have proper legal authority. But in any event, any legal doubt was resolved through the passage of CRMA. And today I would say that Bill 10 is an excellent example of the appropriate transition of an emergency order to permanent legislative changes that will be voted on by the members of this Legislative Assembly.
D. Ashton: Also included in that are regulations that the government can impose in addition to what is in the bill. Also, I would ask the minister, in conjunction with that…. There were five recommendations by the Ombudsperson. Were any of those considered, and have any of those been brought forward to try and address his concerns?
Again, there can be agreements and disagreements about thoughts. But again, we unanimously reappointed the Ombudsperson, and even though he is at arm’s length from government, we have put an individual in place that I’m sure everyone in the Legislature has a lot of respect for. I’m just curious, as to some of his recommendations, why they were not brought forward.
Hon. J. Osborne: I think the key point here is that the recommendation to be bringing in legislation is exactly what’s taking place now. And on the regulations themselves, the powers are specific to local government statutes, and they fall under the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Again, to ensure that they are used fairly and appropriately, they do need to meet those two tests I mentioned before: proportionality and necessity.
D. Ashton: It’s really important that local governments throughout B.C. feel confident that the powers this province is exercising, through which they gain their own authority, are appropriate. Again, coming from local government, what is transpiring in certain places in the province right now has kind of raised a question about authority of power by provincial governments and by the provincial government.
I would just ask the minister that she take it into consideration during her tenure as the minister, especially when “new regulations” are brought back in which do not need to go through the Legislature. Maybe just a point.
At this point in time, I would like to also ask the minister, under section 2: with many of the public hearings and meetings that were occurring virtually this past year, were there any issues that were encountered that the amendments in this clause are helping to address?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. I think this really gets at the heart of what it is that we’ve learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and how we can make improvements that, again, ensure that local governments are providing the best services to their residents and to the businesses in them.
Core principles of local governance include transparency, accountability and accessibility. During the pandemic, to keep people safe, they were not able to access their council meetings or board meetings in the way that they normally would be able to, so the temporary provision that we were able to provide them ensured that these core principles were met.
Again, this is probably our biggest learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. That is what this particular amendment gets to. I think that’s what the member opposite is referring to. In the current legislation, only special meetings of council, for example, could be conducted with electronic participation. The legislation did not allow for regular meetings to take place this way.
This is exactly what I think the member is getting at. These are the changes that we saw needed to be made, and that’s why they’re part of this set of amendments today.
Clause 1 approved.
On clause 2.
D. Ashton: The opportunity of accessibility is incredibly important. You know, Minister, in the area I come from, Tuesday mornings at the coffee shops there was always a discussion about what happened at council the night previous. That has now moved to Wednesday mornings.
Being, I guess, of an age where I’m more computer illiterate than literate, a lot of the people in Penticton I happen to know in the general populace…. The average, if I remember correctly, is around 64 years of age.
It’s just to ensure that there is continual access to councils and continual access to the information that councils are discussing at that point in time and any of the special meetings. I would just hope that that has been taken into consideration also. More of a point with section 2. After, I’d like to move on to section 4.
Clauses 2 and 3 approved.
On clause 4.
D. Ashton: In 2020, how many municipalities, regional districts or greater boards have borrowed in anticipation of revenue? If at all possible, if the minister has the name of the municipalities, regional districts or their greater boards, which ones those are.
Hon. J. Osborne: Revenue anticipation borrowing is a tool that local governments are enabled to use. It is up to them to determine whether they wish to do that. We will know more when annual reports come in. They come in once a year, per local government, and we’ll have more information for the member then.
D. Ashton: Will there be…? I don’t think “scrutiny” is the right word. Will there be oversight as to municipal borrowings and the utilization of those borrowings by the ministry?
Hon. J. Osborne: What this provision does is that it extends the operational repayment deadline for the revenue anticipation borrowing that local governments may have undertaken. Yes, we will monitor it as we see the audited financial statements come in from each local government this year, each year.
D. Ashton: In 2020, how many municipalities, regional districts, greater boards and/or improvement districts have borrowed from reserve funds to cover an operational shortfall? Also, again, does the minister know which ones are involved in that?
Hon. J. Osborne: Like the revenue-anticipation-borrowing repayment deadline extension, this is an enabling provision and one that local governments can choose to use should they deem it necessary. We’ll be able to provide the exact answer as to how many have done so after, once again, we see the audited financial statements that come in from each local government each year.
D. Ashton: There’s that adage. They say: “Don’t ever waste a crisis.” I sure hope that’s not applicable during this, because it has affected so many people — job losses, business losses, life losses, etc.
I’ve noticed with interest…. Maybe a question in parallel to what we’re talking about here.
Is the ministry keeping an eye on wages attached to exempt staff at municipalities, regional districts and boards? I mean, we are all under issues where things are being held to cost of living, etc., or no rent increases, etc. In conjunction with what is transpiring with emergency measures, will the ministry staff be taking a look, at the appropriate time, at the increases that seem to be appearing with the exempt staff throughout the province?
Hon. J. Osborne: Well, there certainly is no doubt that local governments have been on the front line of the pandemic, and they’ve felt the financial pressures, the cost pressures, the cash flow issues that they faced. The purpose, once again, of these amendments, in part, is to help provide permanent provisions to allow local governments to be able to respond in cases like this in the future.
With respect to their own budget decisions, local governments are an independent, autonomous, accountable order of government. It is up to them to, and they do, know their communities best. They make the decisions about the services that they’re providing their local residents, the businesses in their communities. It’s up to them to determine those needs and to set salary structures accordingly. That is not something that the ministry gets involved in.
Clause 4 approved.
On clause 5.
D. Ashton: A clarification. This amendment, along with the amendments in clauses 7 and 19 later in the bill, remove restrictions on who can vote by mail. It basically aligns with the provisions for mail-in ballots during the provincial election. That’s a question: does it?
Hon. J. Osborne: The provincial election provisions are not yet in force, but yes, they will absolutely align.
Clause 5 approved.
On clause 6.
D. Ashton: What is meant by the “special circumstances” in clause 6?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. With respect to this, special circumstances remains the same. As I previously explained, it is any set of extenuating, unforeseen or unexpected circumstances that might arise in the future.
Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive approved.
On clause 9.
D. Ashton: Apparently this allows for electronic public hearings on planning and land use management — again, due to the opportunities that have been not allowed by people for physical contact, coming into public hearings. Has there been an expansion or will there be an expansion in time frame or that around the use of electronic opportunities that are being presented through the public hearing process?
Again, I have to relate to the community that I was so honoured to represent and the age category and the dissemination of information. Has that been allowed, or are there any additional allowments that are being considered during the public hearing and the planning process under section 9?
Hon. J. Osborne: The existing public hearing procedures imply that if a public hearing is required to be held, it will be held in person. But these amendments will give local governments the explicit authority and a permanent authority to hold a public hearing by electronic or other communication facilities.
Local governments might choose to hold public hearings in person, as they have previously. They may do it electronically or hybrid, doing both at the same time.
It is important to always remember that existing public hearing procedures require that all persons who believe that their interests and property may be affected have the opportunity to participate and to make their views known. The amendments do require that if a public hearing is conducted electronically or electronic participation is permitted as part of it, the participants must be able to hear each other so they can make representations.
D. Ashton: Minister, you and I both have had, probably, trepidation at some public hearings, but they give the opportunity for people that are interested. Sections 9, 11, 12 and 13 allow for the use of electronic hearings. But public hearings done personally, when we can do it safely, can make all the difference.
As you know, council and mayor and boards have to go in with a clear mind. I really think that, at some point in time, I would hope that municipalities, regional districts and boards don’t just start to defer to electronic means to be hosting public hearings. I think it’s incredibly important that it’s not an option to hold a public hearing in person. It is an option under circumstances like COVID, or other circumstances, that it would revert to an electronic. But still, the first opportunity is that a public hearing be held in person when time — i.e., through COVID — allows it. It’s just a comment.
I’m fine up to section 14, not including 14.
Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive approved.
On clause 14.
D. Ashton: How many improvement districts are there in British Columbia right now?
Hon. J. Osborne: There are 195 improvement districts in British Columbia.
D. Ashton: What was the motivation for making the change to the time period for an improvement district trustee’s term?
Hon. J. Osborne: Improvement districts in B.C. do have statutory requirements that they are required to meet. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we learned about a number of operational issues that these improvement districts faced, and they required provincial intervention by a ministerial order.
One of the things is around the scheduling of annual general meetings. We learned that improving the flexibility for improvement districts in when they conduct their AGMs was necessary. But because trustee elections, board elections, are typically had at an AGM, we needed to also provide additional flexibility for improvement districts in terms of the term of office for a trustee so that we could have that align with the timing of their AGM.
D. Ashton: Are there any improvement districts that currently do not have a quorum and are requiring oversight by the ministry — i.e., they’re underneath an operation-of-care mode — at this point in time?
Hon. J. Osborne: We are aware of one improvement district that has issues with quorum. That is the Lund improvement district. Our staff is working very closely with them to provide them with the provisions they need to hold their elections.
D. Ashton: I’m currently aware of the time. I have a couple more quick questions. Hopefully we can get through, and then the minister and her staff would not be required to come back after lunch.
I think she answered the motivation for changing the frequency of improvement district AGMs to every calendar year. Is that in reciprocal to the trustees’ terms?
Hon. J. Osborne: That is correct.
Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive approved.
On clause 17.
D. Ashton: Why have regulation-making powers been added to the reserve fund borrowing that allow for the change in the repayment deadline, and/or waiving the 5 percent penalty? Also, similar to the extension of borrowing, why have regulation-making powers been added to allow for the change in the repayment deadline?
Hon. J. Osborne: These are measures that provide flexibility in the terms of repayment to assist local governments that are experiencing the financial challenges that they may have in paying their debts that have been associated with reserve borrowing — for example, in 2020 — and in case their circumstances change.
With respect to waiving of fees or of interest, it is intended to not penalize local governments at a time when they are facing significant cost pressures. It’s just an additional measure that we’re able to provide to assist local governments with their cash flow.
D. Ashton: Just a quick question on that. I hope that the ministry and municipalities realize that the citizens that they represent are also facing those challenges. I hope that they take that under consideration.
My last question: how many municipalities or improvement districts have deferred their 2020 annual tax sale?
Hon. J. Osborne: We are aware that the city of Vancouver has deferred their 2020 annual tax sale. We’re not aware, at this time, of any other local governments that have done so.
Clauses 17 to 27 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 10 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Bill 10, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:05 a.m.
On Vote 36: ministry operations, $17,374,000 (continued).
G. Kyllo: At the end of the day yesterday, I was starting to make some inquiries with respect to the estimates that the minister relied upon in establishing the $320 million that is going to be provided for reimbursement of employers, to reimburse them for the costs associated with the new legislation which will provide up to three paid sick days between now and the end of the year.
Going back to the initial million British Columbians, the minister had indicated — both in committee stage and confirmed again yesterday — that the million workers currently are not covered under any form of paid sick leave program.
I wanted to confirm that those million workers that were identified, which were utilized in formulating the anticipated cost of this program, included both part-time and full-time employees that currently do not have paid sick leave coverage.
Hon. H. Bains: Yes, I think we confirmed that yesterday. The assumptions that are being made about one million workers in British Columbia who may not have any sick leave provisions at the workplace now — they include both full-time and part-time.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate that answer.
So the one million workers that government utilized in identifying those that currently do not have paid sick leave coverage was that million workers that were used to identify and develop the initial $320 million estimated project cost. The minister and the Premier have been on record on numerous occasions indicating that struggling businesses cannot afford any additional cost burden, largely, with the amount of challenges they’ve experienced on account of the pandemic.
Can the minister confirm that for the provision of the temporary paid sick leave program between now and the end of the year, it is the intention of government that businesses that will have additional costs associated with the temporary paid leave provision and that it is certainly the intent of government to provide reimbursement for employers that are unduly impacted and have additional costs associated with the provisions of Bill 13?
Hon. H. Bains: I think it’s important to go back to the discussion that we had. What is the purpose behind the COVID-19 sick leave provisions? The idea is to ensure that the virus is stopped from transmitting at workplaces, and the way to do that is to ensure that the workers who feel sick can stay home.
You wake up Friday morning, you feel sick, and if you can’t afford to stay home, you would go to work. Then there’s a chance of transmitting your virus to the rest of the workforce. Chances are — and it has happened — that the operations have to be shut down because there’s a cluster of the spread of the virus. So I think not doing it could be a lot costlier, and many employers have found out about that the hard way.
I think we said we can’t ask the employer to carry the entire weight, entire cost. That’s why we came up with it that for those employers who do not currently have sick leave provisions in their operation, we would reimburse $200 per person per day. That would cover most of the employers and the workers. That’s the whole purpose behind it — to help the employer to make sure that the transmission of virus is not spreading at workplaces, so their chance of continuing to operate is greater.
Many have found that way. That’s why many of the employers already have their own sick leave provisions. Some of them didn’t have it before COVID, but they started it during COVID. I heard them directly say that, I think because they see the value in it. I think that’s the whole purpose. We’re saying that it’s a pandemic. Many employers are hurting. But there are some employers who are doing well, even during the pandemic.
I think we are saying that those who don’t have sick leave provisions right now at their operations…. It is one of the important steps that we must take to stop the transmission and conquer this pandemic. The best thing that could happen to the employer and the workers is if we can leave the pandemic behind.
There are different steps being taken. This is one of them — that to help the employer, we would reimburse up to $200 a day. That represents the average wage in British Columbia, $25 an hour, so I think it covers most of the employers. There will be some instances where they have an employee with higher than $25 an hour, higher than $200 a day. We’re saying we’re working together. That would be a great help to those employers. For example, if they have employees who are making $26 an hour, they will be required to come up with only $1. We’re reimbursing $25.
I think we, as a government, have come a long way. In addition to all of the other different support systems that we have put in place right from the beginning, here’s another way of saying to them that, yes, we need to stop the transmission at workplaces and give operations an opportunity to continue to operate. But at the same time, we don’t want to ask you to carry the entire weight and the cost of having sick leave provisions. That’s why $200 was considered. We thought it was reasonable. It was the right thing to do.
Other jurisdictions — if you take a look at Ontario, same thing. We tried to work with the federal government. I think the best thing that could have happened is if the federal government would allow us to top up over their CERB program, but they wouldn’t. So this is the best that we could do, come up with our own provisions. Those are the principles behind the sick leave provision that we talked about here.
G. Kyllo: The crux of the matter I’m trying to get at and the questions that I’m canvassing have to do with what I believe is a bit of discriminatory policy that is actually provided by the reluctance of government to provide reimbursement for companies that have a partial program.
I was speaking with a gentleman involved with the Retail Council of Canada recently, and he indicated there are many small retailers around the province that provide paid sick leave benefits for full-time employees. But many of these organizations that have huge swings in volume and sales for the summer months rely heavily on part-time staff and seasonal staff.
The provisions of this bill provide the provision and requirement, actually, for employers to provide paid sick leave to not just full-time but also their part-time employees. The provisions of this bill do put a significant additional cost burden on a business that currently only has the provision for paid sick leave for their full-time employees.
The minister and the Premier have indicated that it’s certainly their intention…. They have acknowledged that many businesses are struggling and cannot afford to have any additional cost burden put on their shoulders.
Yet when I ask a specific question of whether this program — the provision of the paid sick leave — will be made available to businesses that have a partial program…. The minister has indicated — or I certainly have not heard any commitment — government’s intention to actually provide reimbursement for those employers that have additional incremental costs of the expansion of the paid sick leave program, which now will apply to part-time employees. I think that sets up the potential for discrimination.
A business that has no paid sick leave program is eligible, as the minister has indicated, for reimbursement for up to $200 per day, for up to three days per employee, whether they’re part-time or full-time.
But for a business that already has a partial program providing paid sick leave just for their full-time staff and has a significant number of part-time and seasonal employees, the minister has indicated that they’re ineligible.
I’m having a hard time understanding. On one hand, government says that they’re there to provide additional cost support for this temporary program between now and the end of the year to ensure that businesses do not have additional financial burdens on account of this new legislation. Yet when it comes to the opportunity for businesses to make application for reimbursement, the government seems to be picking and choosing who is going to be eligible and who isn’t.
A business that has a program for a portion of their staff, for full-time employees, appears to be ineligible for making application. If it is truly government’s intention to provide additional financial supports for businesses that are struggling on account of COVID and many other instances in this province, I’m just trying to understand why it is that government is choosing to only provide reimbursement for companies that have no program and is turning their back to say sorry to any business that currently has a partial program in place.
If the minister can just try and explain, not just for myself but for viewers that might be listening from home and for businesses that are now going to be struggling with the potential increased cost of the expansion of this program: why is it that government is turning their back and not providing the opportunity for businesses that have a partial program in place to receive reimbursement for the additional costs associated with Bill 13?
Hon. H. Bains: I’ll try to answer this question in many ways. There are always different scenarios. What we tried to do is cover as many employers as possible, and I think we are covering most of the employers. There may be different situations here and another situation somewhere else.
The issue also came up through different venues out there that there are employers who did well during the pandemic. What are we going to do there? How is that fair, when you consider there are businesses that are struggling and businesses that did well? But I think you try to create a good balance. That’s why we said that those who do not have sick leave provisions currently are the employers that we would be providing reimbursement to, up to $200 and three days.
My understanding is, when I was doing some research, Ontario…. When you look at their bill, they were very, very specific that those who had sick leave provisions and tried to cancel it…. There are ramifications there. All those things had to be looked at. I think what we came back with was to create a good balance and make sure that we cover most of the employees, most of the workers. This bill does that. We said that we don’t want to burden the employer entirely. That’s why $200.
Somebody could argue: why not $250? Somebody could argue: why not less than $200? We looked at all those different scenarios.
We thought this is a good balance. Again, I want to come back to what the purpose is behind this. It’s not just throwing money at different places out there in order to support somebody. It is to deal with the pandemic that we are facing at workplaces. Many employers had to shut down because there was a spread of COVID in those places. Some employers…. If they have one or two workers go to work sick, they will transmit that virus to other workers. Now they are at a bigger risk.
Shutting down is much more costly than paying somebody who is sick. They are not paying the entire crew. They are paying one or two people who are sick for a day, two days or up to three days. That’s the balance that I’m talking about. I think we came up with a good balance.
Again, we need to also manage our taxpayer dollars wisely. We owe it to our taxpayers to make sure that we’re responsible with their tax dollars. Many of them are suffering. It’s their tax dollars. We must keep that in the backs of our minds. Many employers are suffering. It’s their tax dollars. They want us to be responsible and prudent with the money that we are managing on their behalf.
Of course, at the end of the day, we are dealing with the pandemic of the century. We’ve never seen such an emergency, at least not in my lifetime or that many people will see in their lifetimes. So I think we learn as we grow, and we deal with the different challenges that come on different days, caused by this pandemic, because the pandemic is changing as we move forward.
I think the bright side, also, on the other side, is that our vaccination program is very, very successful. I just looked at it the other day. Almost 70 percent of people are vaccinated with one shot. We have great experience with those who are…. Some communities are vaccinated entirely, and there the COVID cases are next to nothing, when they were much higher before the vaccination.
So I think this maybe is something that many employers may not even have to deal with. Many workers may not have to take any time off. It’s COVID-related illness. For those reasons, I say that this is a good balance, it’s a good approach, and I think it’s being responsible with taxpayers’ dollars and, at the same time, helping employers in these difficult times and allowing workers who are sick to stay home to stop the transmission of COVID. Not doing it, costs would be much, much higher.
G. Kyllo: I would suggest that there are many businesses that don’t feel that this is a fair program, that it creates winners and losers. You could have two businesses, side by side, competing for the same customer. One business has no plan whatsoever. They’re fully eligible, both for their full-time and part-time staff, for reimbursement. The business next door has been doing the right thing in providing paid sick leave for their full-time employees but not having the financial ability to extend that to all their part-time and seasonal employees. They’re actually ineligible to even make an application.
If the true intention of this legislation and the government’s intention is to, as the minister and the Premier have indicated, reduce the financial burden on businesses that are still struggling and trying to work their way back to pre-normal sales volumes…. If it is truly the intention of government to provide support, I really have a hard time understanding and many businesses have a hard time understanding why government is not willing to allow for the reimbursement program to provide the reimbursement and make it available for all businesses that have additional incremental costs associated with this bill.
This bill is discriminatory in that it provides full coverage for full- and part-time staff for a business that does not have a program. But a business that has a partial program for, say, their full-time staff, as we’ve been discussing here this morning, is ineligible to even make an application, even though they will have the potential additional incremental costs associated with the extension of paid sick leave to part-time employees.
The other piece of this legislation that I have a hard time understanding, as I know many businesses have as well, is the fact that a full-time permanent employee working for a single employer is only entitled to three days of paid sick leave under the provisions of Bill 13. But a part-time employee that may work for three different employers is entitled to three days of paid leave from each of those three different employers for a total of nine days.
I really have a hard time understanding why this piece of legislation creates this situation where there are winners and losers, where a full-time employee is not entitled to the same number of paid sick days as a part-time employee.
Can the minister just provide some additional clarity? He’s indicated that there are a million workers that are not covered under our current paid sick leave program. The minister has indicated that that includes both full- and part-time staff. Yet by the eligibility criteria that they’re developing for reimbursement, a significant number of part-time employees are actually going to be unable…. The businesses that have part-time staff are going to be ineligible to make an application.
I think I’ll go this way. The minister has identified their calculation for coming up with the $320 million cost. They have the ability of actually reducing the eligibility of businesses to make an application for those funds through the eligibility criteria that they’re establishing.
Is it really the minister’s full intention that the entire $320 million will actually be made available for the reimbursement of businesses that are providing additional extended paid sick leave benefits to their employees? That would be a yes or a no.
Hon. H. Bains: Like I said, we can draw all kinds of different scenarios. I think we as a government had to come up with some decisions that benefit most employers, most workers.
A scenario of a part-time worker, three days versus nine days…. Those types of provisions exist in the employment standards today when workers are entitled to certain benefits. If they are part-timers, they could be entitled to the same benefit in two different places if they’re working for two different employers. That’s the similar language here.
Again, I want to remind the member that part-timers must be scheduled to work those days. So if they are working for three different operations, three different employers, are they entitled to three different employers…? And then they are sick at those three different occasions. How is that going to…? I mean, you can stretch it as much as anybody can.
You must be sick with a COVID-19-related illness, and you must be scheduled to work at all of those different employers. That’s how you’ll be entitled to more than one.
At the end of the day, what’s behind this bill is to stop the pandemic from spreading. This bill will do that. There’s a number of employers and employer organizations that support this approach that we have. They’re on record. In public, they say that. They represent a large number of employers out there and their members.
I think there always is that debate. No matter what the program is, some will agree and some will disagree. I think our approach was based on what we believe is fair to make sure that every employee who feels sick in the morning can take time off without fear of losing their money. If that weren’t there, they would go to work, and the risk to the employer is much greater. When we look at those principles behind the bill here, I think we’re on the right track.
Of course, there are a few employees who will say: “That’s not enough.” A few employers will say: “That’s too much.” Or: “It doesn’t help me in this particular case.” I think we tried to create a good balance, and I think it is a good balance.
Also, taking our responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers to use their tax dollars prudently…. I think the employers want us to do that as well.
Of course, there could be different scenarios that the member could come up with. I could come up with 20 other scenarios where things could be different for different people.
Again, I think even full-time employees…. There are workers today who are working more than one job. They are working full time. So somebody could argue: how is that fair?
I think it is something where we wanted to make sure we are balanced. We are fair. The ultimate goal is to stop this pandemic. I think we are succeeding better than other jurisdictions. I mean, I hate to compare with other jurisdictions. Everyone is trying to do whatever they need to do in their jurisdiction. But we have done well.
I say thank you to Dr. Bonnie Henry and her staff, our Ministry of Health officials, all the workers, especially on the front line, and the employers who played — and they stepped up — a key role in stopping this pandemic. Like I said, many employers, on their own, started sick leave programs during this pandemic. Many of them, actually, are saying that they will continue on even post-pandemic because they see the value in it.
It is the right approach, and I think it’s a fair approach. Of course, I think the member and I disagree, I believe, on that particular scenario that the member is painting. I think we are trying to do what we can to help almost all employers and workers to make sure that they work together to conquer this pandemic.
G. Kyllo: Well, I think it’s a very real scenario, where a part-time employee would be eligible for nine days. A part-time employee that works for three different employers and that is identified and has to self-isolate for two weeks on account of COVID…. If they’re scheduled for three or four days with three different employers over the span of two weeks, they would be eligible for the full reimbursement of three days for each of those three employers.
It’s a very real scenario. I’m not just making things up. I know that there are a number of companies, even within my riding of Shuswap, that had upwards of ten workers being identified and having to go home and self-isolate.
I think the crux of the matter is…. The minister has indicated that this is fair and balanced. It is neither fair, nor is it balanced. There’s discrimination that’s being provided through this bill that actually excludes businesses that have a partial program for receiving any benefit, any reimbursement, from government. They’re going to have an additional financial burden put on their backs on account of this new legislation, as valid as it is.
I’m really having a hard time understanding. Government says that they are there to help support businesses and that they understand and appreciate that businesses can no longer afford any additional cost burden. Yet when they have the opportunity to provide fair and equitable compensation for the expansion of the paid sick leave program and any additional incremental costs that businesses will incur, they are drawing a line in the sand and saying: “For those businesses that had no program, we will allow you to provide an application for reimbursement. But if you had any form of a paid sick leave program, any form whatsoever, you’re shut out. You get nothing.” That is not fair, nor is it a balanced approach.
The minister had mentioned that he believes that this new reimbursement program will cover most businesses and most workers. Can the minister please explain what data he is utilizing in order to make that announcement — that most businesses and most employers will be covered and eligible for reimbursement under this program? Is there any statistical data that the minister has, that he can share with us, that actually identifies how many of the workers that are not currently covered under a paid sick leave program are working in organizations that have a partial plan in place?
Hon. H. Bains: I think we canvassed this issue — I don’t know how many times — but I will go over it one more time. When we looked at how many workers out in British Columbia…. I think the member raised that question during our debate, when we were debating the bill. So 2.4 million workers in B.C., minus the self-employed — that leaves you with about two million. This one is a little over one million that covers those workers.
Then again, the remainder, just under one million — many of them have sick leave provisions, or all of them have sick leave provisions. I think it is a good balance, and it is the right thing to do, at the right time. That’s why we’re suggesting that using $25 an hour as the average wage covers most of the wages, in my view. Again, like I said, if the employer has some employees who make more than $25 an hour, that’s the portion that they would be asked to cover. They believe it is a benefit.
It’s much better than those employers who already decided that they want to have their own sick leave program. They’re covering the full cost. Here we are saying to those…. If you don’t have it, then this will apply to you. We will reimburse you up to $200 per day, per employee.
I think it is the right thing to do, at the right time. At the end of the day, we need to make sure that we must overcome this pandemic, because that is the best thing that could happen to employers. We’re almost there. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
When you look at the economy, the way it's going, there is continuous growth in job numbers in British Columbia, better than other jurisdictions, for the last ten months in a row. I think that with the strong economic foundations that we had before the pandemic and now supporting businesses, businesses are coming back again. I think we are in a good position to continue post-pandemic to have a robust economy where people will be able to go back to work.
I was just watching TV today, this morning. There’s a challenge employers are facing right now, that they can’t find workers. It is a challenge for the employer. I think it’s probably telling the story of our success. I think that is something that we would be working with the employers to make sure of: that they get the support that they need, the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act.
I can tell you some of the policies help employers in those situations. Because we put those protections in place, Mexico allowed only British Columbia — to have their workers to come to and work. They stopped in some of the other jurisdictions, because they didn’t believe that their workers would have the proper protection there.
I think we’re doing everything that we can so that the employers get the support that they need, either financially, as we have laid out all kinds of different support systems, or any other which way we can.
I’m advised…. Noting the hour, Madam Speaker, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11 a.m.
On Vote 20: ministry operations, $2,392,755,000 (continued).
The Chair: Thank you, Minister. As we left off at the end of the session yesterday, I believe that you are responding to a question from the Leader of the Third Party.
Hon. M. Dean: Yes. Happy to reply. Thank you so much for the opportunity.
I just wanted to start, as well, by providing some information to the Leader of the Third Party about the work that MCFD has been doing — working hard to change practice regarding Indigenous children and families, particularly in your area.
In Duncan, we have had a measure of success, with a 22.7 percent decrease in the number of children in care since last year. There has also been an increase in the number of children placed with family. As we continue to see improvements, we are going to continue working with community partners and Indigenous communities, as well as the Delegated Aboriginal Agencies, and continue to work hard on improving outcomes for children and families.
In relation to the oversight the member asked about, delegation of social workers is a process established by the provincial director of child welfare. The process for individuals to achieve delegation from the point of hire in the ministry is summarized in this way. Applicants are screened for eligibility based on established educational qualifications and experience before they are considered further in a recruitment process.
Applicants who are screened in go through an assessment process that consists of steps like interviews, reference checks and assessment of past work performance. Successful completion of a criminal record check under the Criminal Records Review Act is required before an applicant can be confirmed for a position.
All B.C. Public Service employees are required to formally acknowledge in writing that they’ve received, read and understand the Standards of Conduct. All B.C. Public Service employees and appointees are required to complete the B.C. Public Service Oath of Employment.
Newly hired child protection workers must successfully complete a six-month probation period and complete post-hire training. To receive full delegation, all candidates must successfully complete the competency-based delegation assessment and readiness tool, which promotes clinical supervision, critical thinking and reflective practice.
In addition, over the next year, MCFD is engaging on social work oversight in B.C., so we’re actually going to be doing some engagement. That’s going to include those registered with the B.C. College of Social Workers; those currently exempt from registration; as well as employers of social workers and those who receive services of social workers, so that would include MCFD and Delegated Aboriginal Agencies; Indigenous rights holders and organizations; the Representative for Children and Youth; the B.C. Association of Social Workers; and any other stakeholders as well.
There will be a public dimension to the online consultation and engagement as well. The engagement will be as inclusive as possible. I know from my experience of working with the young people’s advisory council…. They will be included, as well, and have important things to say, I’m sure.
Then what we will do is use engagement findings to prepare a what-we-heard report. From that, we’ll seek government direction on next steps, which could include legislative or regulatory changes. And we obviously will include, throughout the whole process, special consideration as to how social work oversight impacts Indigenous People and communities.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I think in light of the very public story about Mr. Saunders and the fact that all of those screening-for-eligibility steps did not capture that he didn’t have social work credentials…. Had the college been engaged at the time, that would have probably been the one thing that maybe would have stopped that.
I appreciate the list that the minister just provided.
I also just want to point out that again, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in the province — children, and children in care. I consider the comparison of a teacher….
Yes, as a teacher, there’s education. There are criminal record checks. There’s training. There are all sorts of similar steps that exist, and oversight. There’s an independent College of Teachers that plays an oversight role. Teachers are held to account by that college, and the steps taken in any kind of disciplinary action for a teacher are made public and are available to everybody. All of the standards of practice are listed in those steps that are taken when there’s a disciplinary action against a teacher.
I want to point out that this isn’t unusual. The fact that the independent oversight of the College of Social Workers doesn’t exist currently in the structure actually sets it apart from most other professionals who are engaged in any kind of duty of care of populations — health professionals, teachers.
Even in the resource world, there is expanded regulatory oversight now for engineers, foresters, biologists. Independent regulatory oversight is part of what ensures that there’s transparency, accountability and trust for people who are working with the most vulnerable populations in our province.
I’m going to hand it over to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands for a few questions to wrap up our time. I will just exit the room and let him take in.
I thank the minister for her responses to my questions.
A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to take part in budget estimates for MCFD.
I’m just wondering if the minister can tell me how many Indigenous youth are in care currently in the province.
Hon. M. Dean: The answer to your question is 3,616.
A. Olsen: Can the minister perhaps characterize how these numbers have fluctuated over the last decade or so? Is this about an average that we’ve seen? Have those numbers increased or decreased over time? Maybe just provide us a snapshot over…. We could pick any period. We know there is a long history of this in this province. I’m just wondering if maybe we could provide a contemporary context of what we’re looking at in terms of the numbers.
Hon. M. Dean: I can provide the member with details of those numbers over whatever period that he would like. What I will talk about is the numbers since 2017.
We have seen a decrease of the number of Indigenous youth in care, year on year. It has decreased year on year.
To give you some examples, in 2017, the number was 4,364 — this is all taken in March; in 2018, the number was 4,252; 2019, 4,111; and 2020, 3,793. That brings us to December 2020, that figure of 3,616.
We are actually now at the lowest number of Indigenous children in care in over 20 years.
A. Olsen: Well, that’s encouraging news. Thank you. Of course, we’re all working towards getting those numbers as low as possible.
Maybe one final question. I might have a follow-up, depending on what the answer is. Just in the context of the recent news of what the radar scans have found at the Kamloops Indian Residential School and the calls from the community leaders there for investments in a healing and trauma centre and that support to help families through this really painful process.
Has the Ministry of Children and Family Development…? Do they have a budget and money set aside to support those communities with the resources that are necessary when they ask for the resources — that we are in a position here in this province now that we are saying that we can do this rather than saying what we can’t do, which is so often what Indigenous communities hear from this provincial Crown government?
Hon. M. Dean: I do want to express my commitment and the commitment of our ministry. It’s reflected in all of the hard work of all of our staff as well. We’re absolutely committed to reducing the number of Indigenous kids and young people in care. We’re absolutely committed to working in partnership with Indigenous communities, with rights holders and with Indigenous leadership as well.
We are working really hard with many communities in British Columbia to support work for exercising jurisdiction and taking responsibility for services to children and exercising that jurisdiction — and working with the federal government, as well, to make sure that those partnerships are operational.
The funding the ministry has is operational funding. The discussions with communities are actually around…. As they take on services, then the funding is able to be moved over from the ministry to those agencies or nations for the nations to be able to determine what services are going to be in their communities.
With different communities, we’ve been able to take a broad and holistic approach and have those conversations with them. We take it on an individual — each community, each nation — basis and have those tables and those discussions about how they want to best serve their children and youth and how we can support them in doing that.
The Chair: Does that conclude your questions, Member? Okay.
Recognizing now the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much, and thank you to the minister. This will be my first question in estimates. So I’m going to make this a really easy one and one that’s going to help me, of course.
I’ve worked with CYSN contracts, and I just want to, actually, clarify something with the minister. Is CYSN children and youth with special needs or children and youth with support needs? I’ve seen it in both contracts, and I wasn’t sure if that changed over a period of time. I just want to make sure that I’m using the correct referral of that.
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you, Member.
There has been a change. The ministry did a consultation with over 1,500 families and stakeholders and heard directly from families and from people working in the field that the terminology of “special needs” was actually outdated. The recommendation was to use “support needs.” So where we see CYSN….
As we modernize and move forwards, we in the ministry are talking about children and youth with support needs. So the minister’s advisory council, for example, which I’m really excited about, is the Minister’s Advisory Council on Children and Youth with Support Needs.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much. I just wanted to make sure I was referencing things correctly.
I want to talk a little bit about the CYSN framework. We know that during this last year or 18 months, it’s been very, very difficult for families, particularly when they don’t have access to respite. They don’t have access to the developmental supports that their young people generally are using in order to be able to continue their development and move more towards independence and more respite for families.
In December 2020, the minister said — this is the CYSN framework that I’m referring to: “As we work to finalize this framework.” Yet the ministry told the Representative for Children and Youth on June 30, 2019, that the consultation had been completed. The sessions were completed, which analyzed eligibility, equity, cultural responsiveness, inclusion and family support.
Now I understand that there is an advisory panel which has just been put together to, again, review CYSN and the potential framework. Has the time frame changed on this, and why has the time changed on that?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you for the question. The framework was designed and built out after the consultation with about 1,500 people. Then, of course, what happened after that was that the pandemic hit. That actually revealed even more information, and we had more reports from the Representative for Children and Youth as well.
We want to acknowledge, as we go into the work with the advisory council, that the framework is largely there. Also, we don’t need to keep going back, but we would welcome any feedback from the council on the framework, because we do want to be implementing it.
The really important thing with the council is to talk about the implementation of the framework. The framework has been developed with a lot of consultation. Really, the work, moving forward, is very much about planning and successfully implementing the framework.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to try to combine a couple of things right now — I’ll try not to make it too many things that aren’t connected — just to be expedient here. Thank you for that answer.
Is the panel expected to publicly report out on the consultation work with the current panel, or is that going directly to the minister?
Then I’m curious about the pre-consultation or the initial consultation that was done. Of those 1,500 people that had been canvassed in 2018, how many of those people are actually on the current panel? What is the panel expected to do that those 1,500 people in the 19 communities didn’t do?
Hon. M. Dean: Some but not all of the members of the advisory council were involved in the initial 1,500. There won’t be a public report-out of the advisory council — it’s an advisory council — but there will be summary reports that will be issued and made publicly available.
Eventually, all the information will be released, but there will be these summary reports that will come out. We welcome any feedback.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Alone and Afraid: Lessons Learned from the Ordeal of a Child with Special Needs and His Family — out of that, their recommendation was the impetus for the CYSN service framework review.
Now, I understand the representative was told that this would actually be implemented. I understand you’ve said the pandemic, but this was actually to be implemented in 2020.
My question is: did the minister seek the necessary funding enhancements in December 2019 for the CYSN framework to actually have been implemented in 2020?
Hon. M. Dean: In response to Alone and Afraid, we did, as a ministry, receive a $13 million a year, year on year, increase in respite funding.
Then, of course, in 2020, the pandemic hit. As the member rightly says, that had a big impact on these families. What they said to us was that they needed emergency measures. The ministry did a lot of work. I really appreciate the hard work and dedication of our staff, to be able to find some emergency measures that would benefit families and children and youth with support needs in response to what they were saying to us that they wanted.
I can talk about any more of these in more detail, but just to let the member know, there was an emergency relief fund. There were changes to the autism funding program for the emergency. There was flexible use of basic respite funding. There were improvements made to the At Home program and also with the special needs agreements and voluntary care agreements and with the supported child development and Aboriginal supported child development programs as well.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m just trying to decide…. This can go to a couple of different questions, following this.
I’m just going to ask a question about the $6,000 autism funding that families get annually. I know that there was some — I believe the minister mentioned yesterday — flexibility in how some of that money could be used.
I’ve heard from a lot of parents that they were unable to use much of that funding because the services that were normally available to them — summer camps, therapists…. They were not able to access that. Yet they may have had to take time away from work and incur other expenses that didn’t qualify as an expense under that fund.
Does the minister know how many families were not able to access that full amount of money last year and if there is any ability for them to roll that over so that they can get additional services this year, as their children will have had some more developmental delays, having not received that support this past summer?
Hon. M. Dean: The member asked about the $6,000 a year. Just to clarify, it’s $6,000 a year for children over the age of six. It’s $22,000 a year for children age six and under. It’s not possible to separate out those two demographics in the finances.
Also, just to be clear, it’s not always spent by families every year, even not in a pandemic. Many families actually do struggle to find the services that their children need, especially in more remote areas. They tell us that, actually, having individualized funding is a real barrier for them, because it takes a lot of parental capacity and resources to be able to identify the right services and coordinate all the services and be the project manager for the individualized funding services for their children or youth. It’s very stressful for many families.
Actually creating a system through the children and youth with support needs framework would respond to that. That’s one of the motivators for us to be continuing the work of implementing the CYSN framework.
Even though it’s not always spent, the information we would be able to provide to you — we don’t have it today, but we can provide it to you after today — is the information of the underspend year on year, so that you can actually see the data on that.
Also, just to remind the member that the autism funding just renews every year on the child’s birthday. That continued during the pandemic.
What we heard from families was, as the member rightly said, that they wanted services. Again, there were emergency measures that we put in place specifically for families with children with autism needs.
They could use up to 35 percent of their funding to buy eligible travel, for example, training and equipment. They could submit justification-for-equipment forms without needing a clinician’s signature.
There was a three-month extension to use any unspent autism funding for children and youth whose sixth or 19th birthday fell between March 15, 2020, and August 31, 2020. Families with children under the age of six can use that autism funding to access family counselling services. That expired end of August 2020.
There was a temporary exception to the eligibility policy to accept virtual assessments conducted through the British Columbia Autism Assessment Network. We’ve extended that through to the end of March 2022. So that’s through to the end of next fiscal.
The other item that we heard from parents, as I’ve mentioned before, is that they really wanted to be able to have flexibility in using basic respite funding. We provided flexible use of funding options for respite and in-home supports.
There were automatic renewals for basic respite and acceptance of electronic signatures and information from families. There was a suspension of the need to submit record-of-expenses forms. All of these respite care interim emergency measures are in place until the end of March 2022.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer. Thank you if that information can be sent and with the comparisons, which I didn’t ask for. Thank you, that makes sense. I do also appreciate, for staff, that’s it’s not a calendar year. It’s the child’s birthday. So sometimes the comparisons can be more difficult.
I am happy to hear that the new CYSN framework will actually take some of those barriers away for the challenges that parents have on trying to self-manage those funds.
Out of that, two questions. Will the framework include, also, supports for youth and families with an FASD diagnosis? In last year’s estimates, the minister confirmed the FASD services are part of the suite of services that are inclusive of child and youth with special needs framework, so if we can just confirm that that is part of it.
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member. The answer, though, is yes. The framework is based on the needs of the children and youth. It’s not based on a diagnosis. It’s based on the developmental and functional need that children present with.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.