Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 167
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Fraud Risk
Management: Office of the Comptroller General, | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Kang: I would like members to welcome in the gallery this morning Mr. Hae Young Song, the newly arrived consul general of Korea in Vancouver. He is joined by Deputy Consul General Sok Kwang Hong. I look forward to meeting with both of them this afternoon as they undertake their initial courtesy meetings with provincial officials on their very first trip here to Victoria.
Would the members please make them feel very welcome.
D. Clovechok: It’s not very often I get visitors here from my riding, given that it’s six mountain ranges and a ferry ride away, but I do have two of our community members up in the gallery today, John and Joan Rouse, who are great community members in the Columbia Valley.
I’d just like to have this House make them feel very welcome. I look forward to having lunch.
H. Yao: Today I would like to take a moment, especially on International Women’s Day, to wish my mother-in-law a happy birthday. As many people have known, being a son-in-law, the last thing we want to is to make our mother-in-law unhappy.
I also want to take a moment to say that for us to be able to be legislators in the B.C. Legislature here, it is extremely important for our family to feel supported. I do have a young family, and I’m very thankful my in-laws took time out of their busy schedule and came to support my wife during this difficult time.
If everybody is willing to indulge me, I want to wish my mother-in-law a happy birthday in Mandarin, so she can share it with her friends and family, who might find English a bit difficult.
岳母大人，我，姚君憲，加拿大卑詩省列治文南中區省議員，祝您生日快樂
[Mandarin text supplied by H. Yao.]
D. Routley: It’s International Women’s Day, and I get to introduce a young woman. I’d like everybody to help me wish a happy birthday to little Miss Ruth Eleanor Florence Robinson, who turned one on March 3. I promised her mom that I’d introduce her today.
She is born to a line of incredible women who are lifetime activists for justice, peace, liberation and feminism. Her dad, Dave Robinson, is the son of Bill Robinson, longtime Canadian national basketball player. Baby Ruth — not the candy, but the little sweetheart — can’t be with us today because she had the sniffles. She was going to be here with her mom to get pictures with all of the amazing women in this building, but she’ll be here soon.
So get ready, this place, for baby Ruth Eleanor Florence Robinson.
Happy birthday, Ruth.
J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure today to introduce Tamara Meggitt. Tamara has been down here a number of times, now, in the building. She’s down here again.
Tamara has been working very hard on behalf of the forest sector. She has been involved in Loonies for Loggers during the strike. She’s been involved up and down the Island in many rallies, trying to get the forest message out and trying to show government that forestry matters and that it’s an important value for the families and the people, particularly on the Island, but right across the province.
Would the House please make Tamara welcome.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: In 1927 the Famous Five petitioned the federal government, arguing that women in Canada should be considered persons. The Persons case, led by these five now Canadian heroines, suffragettes, initiated the first wave of women’s equality in Canada.
Nelly McClung was one of the five. Her final home was in Gordon Head, here on Vancouver Island. How perfect that on International Women’s Day, her granddaughter Marcia McClung is here in the House along with her husband, historian Franklyn Griffiths.
I encourage the House to make them welcome and to wish all of us a happy International Women’s Day.
A. Olsen: Laura, Phyllis, Sylvia, Emily, Joanie, Heather, Ella, Yetsa, Madison, Patty, Sonia, Laura, JoJo, Maeve, Yoninna, Stephanie, Hailey, Laura, Sarah, Claire and Rose. That is not an exhaustive list, but that is the best I could do this morning for the incredible women that I have in my life that have — as my mom, Sylvia, who is on that list, said — forged me into the person that I am today. This list does not include my sisters-in-law, the numerous aunties and cousins that I have.
On International Women’s Day, I just wanted to stand and mention the names of the powerful women in my life on the record here and raise my hands in an immense amount of gratitude for everything they’ve done for me.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to wish happy International Women’s Day to a very special woman in my community of Vancouver–West End and also a belated birthday. I don’t know how I missed it. She turned 110 just two weeks ago, Merle Millicent Romney O’Hara. She lives at Haro Park Centre, grew up in Kingston, Jamaica. She was born the year the Titanic sank. She has lived an incredible life.
I want to wish her both a happy belated birthday and Happy International Women’s Day. To her; her daughter Bridget, who is 85 and lives at Haro Park Centre as well; and of course, all of the women at Haro Park, happy International Women’s Day.
R. Singh: Today, as we celebrate International Women’s Day and the incredible women all over the world, I want to give a shout-out to the most important woman in my life, my mom, who also celebrates her birthday today.
Happy birthday, Momma. I love you.
B. Bailey: It’s fitting that on International Women’s Day, I am wishing a happy birthday to my daughter Esme, who is turning 25 on March 16 and who is the most ferocious and dedicated feminist woman who tackles things from an intersectional lens and is studying queer studies at UBC. I’m ridiculously proud of her.
Please join me in wishing her a happy birthday.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
Hon. R. Fleming presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 13, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022. This bill contains amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act. These amendments will make permanent two transitional authorities that were established in 2019, by way of regulation, to support taxi modernization and the introduction of ride-hail.
Making these amendments permanent aligns our province’s record check process with the human rights code, supports gig economy workers and keeps drivers with temporary permits regulated and their passengers safe. Under the act’s transitional regulation-making authority, the regulations are due to be automatically repealed September 16, 2022. Preserving these authorities in the act will enable the province to maintain its commitment to prioritizing passenger safety within the commercial passenger transportation industry.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M202 — EQUAL PAY REPORTING ACT
S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Equal Pay Reporting Act.
S. Cadieux: I move that the bill intituled Equal Pay Reporting Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
Today on International Women’s Day, we’ve gathered in this House to celebrate the achievements of women across the province, but we cannot celebrate nor accept any further the lack of equal pay for women in British Columbia. We have the worst gender pay gap in the country. Women are earning 18.6 percent less than men. They have continued to bear the negative consequences of the pandemic’s economic downturn while leading our pandemic’s front-line efforts.
In order to truly achieve equity in our economy and fully recover from the pandemic, we must close the gender pay gap. We are grappling with a labour shortage in this province, and this government’s labour market outlook forecasts more than one million job openings in the next ten years.
We can’t expect to fill those jobs without supporting full participation in the workforce, which means giving women the full respect, recognition and pay they deserve. This bill introduced today would require businesses of a prescribed size to report the pay gap they have between male and female employees.
Let’s make 2022 the year that we work together to close the gender gap. I urge all members of this House to act decisively to make equal pay legislation in B.C. a reality.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
S. Cadieux: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for debate at the next session.
Bill M202, Equal Pay Reporting Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY
S. Cadieux: I am proud to be here today with my colleagues to celebrate International Women’s Day. It’s an important day to reflect and celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women across the globe.
As a woman in politics, I am continuously reminded of the incredible women who paved the way and opened the doors for those of us who are currently here today. The progress we’ve made towards gender equality would not have been possible without the tireless activism by women in this province and around the world.
The first International Women’s Day took place in 1911, where more than one million people in Europe gathered to advocate for women’s right to vote and equal pay for equal work. The suffragette movement was also active in Canada and led to female citizens gaining the right to vote in 1917 for provincial elections, 1918 for federal elections. This movement, however, was not inclusive of Indigenous, Black and Asian women, who continued to be excluded for many more decades.
We began to see further strides towards equality in the ’70s, where feminists fought hard for women’s liberation. They challenged gender roles in society and called for an end to sexism and equality in the workplace. It was not until the 1990s and the 2000s, however, when this movement became more inclusive and began to recognize the intersectionality and experiences for women.
Today we continue to strive towards equality and work together in addressing gender-based violence, pay inequity, the missing and murdered Indigenous women and many other important causes.
These initiatives for change give me hope, because although there is much more to do, we know that change is possible and that we can work together to break the bias.
G. Lore: I, too, am so thrilled to rise today to use my two minutes to celebrate International Women’s Day. So a very happy International Women’s Day to everyone in this House; to all 37 women who sit in this Legislature, the most ever; to our incredible Clerk, the first woman to hold this position in B.C. history; to all the mothers and grandmothers, aunties and sisters and daughters who have held up our community over the last two exhausting years.
To the incredible leaders recognized last week with the Order of B.C. — Brenda Baptiste, Dr. Bonnie Henry, Shirley Chan, Tracy Porteous, and so many more — who were honoured for their achievements in medicine and science, in business and community leadership, in education and reconciliation and creating and protecting B.C.’s diverse culture and history.
To the leaders in our communities — people like Janine Theobald, who works, among many other things, to address gender-based violence against women experiencing homelessness; Katrina Jensen, who leads essential harm reduction and safe supply work through AIDS Vancouver Island; Paulina Cameron, CEO of the Forum, which supports B.C. women entrepreneurs; Jean McRae, who leads the Inter-Cultural Association, championing anti-racism and welcoming newcomers; and youth like Quinn, running for student government in her grade 5 class and standing up for what she knows is right.
Leaders of today and tomorrow, happy International Women’s Day.
I am so proud of our government’s fundamental commitment to improving the lives of all women and girls and, yes, this includes trans women and girls. Today we’re holding our first round table to create a gender-based violence action plan, a plan grounded in community and centred around survivors’ rights to safety and equality.
This spring, I am so thrilled to say, consultations to create a made-in-B.C. pay transparency legislation. Transparency and accountability are a step to address the pay gap in B.C., a gap that is not just about gender but also racialized. It’s bigger for Indigenous women and girls, those living with disabilities and newcomers.
We’ll connect with community, business and stakeholders and build to legislation that will help us to lead the way, not just catch up. I can’t wait.
Happy International Women’s Day.
J. Tegart: I rise today in honour of International Women’s Day, a day to celebrate the incredible achievements of women and gender diverse people around the world but also a day to recognize the challenges, barriers and stigmatization that women and others have faced.
This year’s theme, #BreakTheBias, recognizes the stereotypes and discrimination so many women still face in their homes, communities and workplaces. Even though women make up just over half of the Canadian population, they continue to be underrepresented in political and professional leadership positions. This is despite the many unique perspectives and contributions that women bring to the table.
Women excel at bringing people together. Communication is a strong suit. Women appreciate hearing diverse perspectives and building consensus. These are all benefits to the decision-making process and lead to positive outcomes for projects and initiatives. When more women are put in leadership roles, they become role models to girls and to other women.
I have been blessed to be surrounded by incredible women leaders and role models in my entire life and certainly throughout my professional career, as a member of a school board, local government and now, today, in this Legislature. I have witnessed firsthand, as all of us here have, the incredible skills and talents that strong and powerful women use to improve the lives of our fellow British Columbians and Canadians, to build a better world for all while serving as important role models to show young women that the sky is truly the limit.
We have seen all of these incredible things that women do, and let us all enjoy the celebration today.
SOCIAL WORKERS
K. Paddon: It is my honour to acknowledge Social Work Week, happening March 13 to 19 in B.C. During this week, we celebrate the dedicated work of thousands of social workers and the practitioners, clinicians and other front-line staff who support children, youth and families across our province.
Many social workers and front-line staff work for the B.C. Public Service. Thousands more practice their profession within delegated Aboriginal agencies and with Indigenous partners. In hospitals and schools, in community living, in non-profit agencies and in so many other social service organizations, every day social workers and frontline staff in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and at delegated Aboriginal agencies focus on providing more supports and resources to help families stay together and thrive or be reunited.
Some are focused on supporting young people to live independently to make the transition into adulthood a little less challenging. Some work at child and youth mental health services with children and youth who have support needs, at Youth Justice, Foundry B.C. and more.
Social workers and front-line workers are also participants in society’s most current and important conversations — about reconciliation, about gender identity and sexuality, about anti-bullying and supporting Indigenous communities using trauma-informed practice — and work to connect Indigenous children and youth to their communities, their languages, their cultural practices and traditions.
Through listening and through direct action, their work helps people cope. They find ways to bring hope when it’s missing. That’s why we recognize and are grateful for them, not just this week but all year long.
This year’s theme is “In critical demand — social work is essential.” Maybe you know someone in your life who is just beginning to explore careers or who is in an employment transition. Maybe you see the traits of a social worker within them. Encourage them to consider this work.
Please raise your hands or bring your hands together and join me in thanking all social workers and front-line staff for their kindness, their energy and their commitment to being there for others.
WOMEN’S CONTRIBUTIONS AND
LEADERSHIP IN B.C.
COMMUNITIES
R. Merrifield: When I think of celebrating International Women’s Day, I think of the incredible women in my community and in my life. I’m just going to highlight a few today.
Pardeep Khrod, executive director of B.C. Cancer Foundation, Interior, has worked tirelessly to raise critical funds to enhance research, outcomes and care for those facing a cancer diagnosis.
Tracy Medve is the president of KF Aerospace, formally the president of Canada North. In 2010, she was inducted as an honorary life member with the Air Transport Association of Canada, the first woman to ever receive this honour.
Prof. Lesley Cormack, deputy vice-chancellor and principal of UBC’s Okanagan campus in Kelowna, has served since July 2020, after joining us from the University of Alberta.
Karine Veldhoen, the thought leader in education, with her philosophy of Learn Forward, is now teaching the teachers around B.C., teaching at university as well as in North America on digital platforms.
Shauna Harper is the new CEO at Women’s Enterprise Centre. Shauna is no stranger to entrepreneurship and took on this new role in Kelowna to help many women entrepreneurs.
Shannon Christensen is the boss mama at Mamas for Mamas. She saw a need for mamas and has been a force in creating support for new parents and moms across Canada.
Susan Brown, CEO Interior Health Authority. We would not have gotten through the pandemic as well as we have without her steady hand and calm demeanour coupled with fierce insight and strategy.
I could go on and talk about Jane Cartwright, Theresa Arsenault, Laurel Douglas, Deborah Buszard, Laurie Clarke, Meryle Corbett, because all are champions of the next generation of women leaders.
There are far too many for me to mention here, but today I celebrate these women and the many like them across this province for all they do as role models, increasing the opportunities for women. In doing so, they make B.C. a better place to call home.
KATZIE FIRST NATION LEADERSHIP
B. D’Eith: I would like to acknowledge that the people of my constituency live, work and play on the traditional territories of the Katzie, Kwantlen and Stó:lō Nations.
Today, though, I’d like to focus on the Katzie First Nation. The Katzie First Nation held their band elections at the end of February, re-electing Grace George as Chief, and it’s fitting, on International Women’s Day, to celebrate such a strong leader in our community. Also, Lisa Smith and Rick Bailey were re-elected as councillors.
On behalf of the MLA For Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and myself, I would like to congratulate Grace, Lisa and Rick. I really look forward to working together as we have for the last few years.
Now, during the past few years, this council has led many positive initiatives for the Katzie First Nations. For example, earlier this month the Katzie community held their second annual Honk Parade in honour of Pink Shirt Day. Many vehicles decorated in pink balloons and messages of unity participated, along with people on foot, all denouncing bullying in any form. Chief Grace George felt it was important for the community to host the parade on this day, not only for their children and youth but for community members of all ages.
Also, earlier this year the Katzie announced that they will be building a treatment centre in Maple Ridge. The centre will be located in a peaceful forested area along the Alouette River. The centre will provide a range of supports, including addiction and PTSD treatment programs, family and parenting programs, withdrawal and detox, a life skills program and restorative justice.
They also plan to provide continuing aftercare support for participants who are in the programs on site. I believe this holistic approach will provide a real benefit to the community and the participants, and I’m excited to see this facility come to life.
The Katzie First Nation continues to display their ability to grow and sustain innovative developments, and it’s a privilege to work beside them in bettering our community.
Haychka.
Oral Questions
ACTION ON GAS PRICES
S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, 207 weeks ago the Premier made a promise that he had a range of options to help people with the cost of gas. One week ago he promised “everything is on the table,” yet day after day, the price of gas goes higher and higher.
What does the Premier do? Nothing. As Dave Earle, of the B.C. Trucking Association, said yesterday: “You and I and everybody out there are going to pay for increased costs to move anything, and we have never seen this type of rise. Fuel has outstripped all the other costs combined, and we’re all going to feel the pinch.”
Will the Premier tell British Columbians exactly what he is going to do to help British Columbians with the soaring gas prices?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. The reality is: the issue of soaring gas prices is a global phenomenon — not restricted to British Columbia, right across the country, all over North America — and it is related directly to Russia’s invasion in Ukraine. That is a fact.
We recognize that, and government has been looking at how to deal with it. One of the most effective ways, recognizing that gas prices are going up related to international troubles, and to which Professor Antweiler at UBC has said that no amount of triggering with taxes is going to change that, is looking at how we can make life more affordable for British Columbians.
That’s what this government has been doing since the day we were elected. Whether it has been fixing the dumpster fire at ICBC that has resulted in significant savings to insurance for drivers, turning it around so that we were able to give rebates to put money back in the pockets of British Columbians…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …whether it has been lowering the cost of child care for thousands of British Columbian families to make sure that they are able to save money — which, on International Women’s Day, I think a point worth noting is that it’s women who predominantly benefit from those cost savings — this government has been about making life more affordable since we were elected, and we are going to continue doing that.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
S. Bond: There are a whole number of issues with that answer. Let’s talk about International Women’s Day and the fact that this government, not once but twice, promised $10-a-day daycare and has failed to deliver. In fact, now we’re at $20 average.
British Columbians do not feel like life is more affordable under this government, with soaring costs for cell phones and gas and groceries, and you can’t buy a house, and there’s no renters’ rebate. That answer is simply ridiculous.
Also, to the minister, he knows full well that British Columbia had the highest gas prices and the highest gas taxes long before the invasion of Putin, and they continue to have them now.
Let’s be clear, This Premier made a promise — not once; he made it again and again — that somehow he had a magic solution. Those aren’t my words. The Premier made a promise to British Columbians.
Also, to the minister, well apparently, other jurisdictions can figure out what to do. In contrast to this answer and this Premier, the Premier of Alberta made a promise and has followed through with….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s listen to the question.
Please continue.
S. Bond: Apparently, facts are uncomfortable for the NDP government.
Let’s look back at what Dave Earle had to say: “Ultimately, all of these costs get passed on to you and I. The items you buy are going to be impacted right across the board, everything that you buy.” The Premier made a promise, and he has failed to deliver.
What exactly today will the Premier do to help British Columbians deal with the skyrocketing cost of gas?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I do notice, with some interest, the opening comments the Leader of the Opposition had in her response to the fact of the initiatives that we undertook as a government to make life more affordable for British Columbians, to be moving to $10-a-day daycare, getting there by adding more than 40,000 spaces; by making life more affordable for British Columbians; by reducing costs for car insurance — all of those things.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The only party that jacked up ICBC rates is that side of the House over there. And it’s a little bit rich to be lectured by…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Order. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …a Leader of the Opposition and the B.C. Liberal Party that, when they got into power in 2001, scrapped pay-equity legislation. They cut funding for sexual assault centres.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll tell you what else they did. They introduced a server wage so that women, predominant in the hospitality industry, earned less than the minimum wage. We’re not going to take any lessons on affordability from that side of the House.
R. Merrifield: Well, if this government was actually serious about equality, they might consider making good on their promise for free contraception. Instead, we’re going to continue talking about the cost of gas, because gas prices are reaching punishing levels.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question.
R. Merrifield: That’s really interesting that it’s so funny.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Please, order.
R. Merrifield: Gas prices are reaching punishing levels for drivers in the Fraser Valley. That includes people like Colby, who commutes nearly 40 kilometres for his work in Abbotsford every day. He says: “I drive a truck and I use it as a truck, so an electric car isn’t really an option. Gas jumped almost 25 cents just over the weekend. There’s no transit, and you can’t ride a bike that far.”
Why isn’t the Premier doing anything about sky-high gas prices for people like Colby?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I want to remind the member of the comments of her own new leader — I know she ran against him — and what he had to say about the price of gas. That was: “I don’t want to pretend there’s any magic solution to the fact that fuel prices have doubled in the past 12 months.”
There is not a magic solution. This increase has been due to Putin’s invasion in Ukraine.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Listen, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You can always tell when you’re making a point and they don’t like the truth. It’s because they start howling like banshees.
Gas prices have been spiking, as I’ve said, due to events outside the jurisdiction of this province. But what we in this province have been doing is working day after day to make life more affordable for families right across British Columbia. It doesn’t matter whether it’s removing tolls on the highway, making driving more affordable in terms of cheaper insurance, bringing in child care. All of those things help British Columbians, and we’re going to continue to do that.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.
R. Merrifield: Yeah, this isn’t really about what my leader says. This is about what the Premier said and that there was magic solutions. B.C. has the highest gas taxes and the highest gas prices in North America.
Instead of keeping the carbon tax revenue-neutral, the Premier is taking over $1 billion in extra carbon taxes out of the pockets of British Columbians. That impacts people like Kirsty, who is a community health worker on Vancouver Island. She says: “As a community health worker, this is going to make caring for people in the community more expensive.”
The Premier promised magic solutions, action on gas prices to people like Kirsty. Why hasn’t he done anything?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again, I’ll take the opportunity to remind that member that the situation around gas prices is a global phenomenon related to the situation in Ukraine. It’s unfortunate that she doesn’t seem to understand that.
Perhaps, maybe, she might want to listen to what UBC professor Antweiler said just a little while ago, which is: “The problem is we have a situation in the global market, and no amount of change to tax will make that go away.”
Once again, what we have been doing in our government is focusing on making life affordable for British Columbians. We have been doing that since day one. We have listed example and example on how we’re doing that.
I know that they don’t like the fact that we saved drivers, on average, $500 on ICBC premiums. They voted against it. I know they don’t like the fact…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …that we’re moving to $10-a-day daycare, because they voted against the budget that provided relief for families. I know they don’t like the fact that the child opportunity fund, which puts up to $2,600 back in a family’s pocket, making life more affordable…. They voted against that.
This side stands on the side of families. They stand on the side of $2 billion tax giveaways to the richest corporations.
ACCESS TO FREE CONTRACEPTION
A. Olsen: The United Nations has named contraception a basic human right, but in British Columbia, contraception is a privilege unafforded to many. An intrauterine device costs between $75 and $380. Oral contraceptive pills can cost $20 a month or $240 annually. A hormone injection can cost $180 per year.
While cisgender men like myself can get a lifetime supply of free or near-free contraception, and vasectomies are covered by MSP, other British Columbians must find a walk-in clinic, deal with doctors who may be poorly informed about reproductive health and shell out hundreds of dollars, all to access a human right. These barriers fall disproportionately on women, trans men and gender-diverse people.
In 2020, this government promised to deliver free prescription contraception to all British Columbians if re-elected. They were re-elected, and they were given a majority, yet we’ve seen two provincial budgets passed and no free prescription contraception for British Columbians.
To the Premier, why has this government not fulfilled the 2020 election promise for free prescription contraception for all British Columbians?
Hon. A. Dix: I think this is a policy…. I’m delighted to see members of the opposition support it. This is a policy that the government believes in, that we intend to implement in the time of this government. We made the commitment, and we’re going to follow through on that commitment.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.
A. Olsen: During the election, the Premier was quick to tweet about the commitment that was made — to accept, I think, the fact that they’d made the commitment for free prescription contraception — and happy to talk about it during the election, to provide it in the mandate letter of the Minister of Health. To provide free contraception to all British Columbians — that’s a commitment that the Minister of Health must follow through on. Two budgets: we still see this commitment remain unfulfilled.
Now we hear this minister, standing up in the House, saying that it’s going to be done over the lifetime of this parliament. That’s four years. That’s several hundred dollars later. We’ve heard the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General stand up in this House today, talking about making life more affordable for British Columbians. For some British Columbians, they’re making life more affordable.
The fact of the matter is that the costs are going up for British Columbians. The economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women and gender-diverse people. These impacts have been compounded for disabled people and people of colour. Amidst all of this, the most impacted — women, trans men and gender-diverse people — continue to have to shell out hundreds of dollars annually to fulfil a basic right. We’ve just heard from the minister that they can expect, potentially, hundreds more.
My question again is to the Premier. This Premier has the majority government that he so wanted, but he can’t seem to fulfil this basic promise. It’s yet another example of the Minister of Health not delivering on equity, as was the commitment of this government.
Will this government fulfil its promise of free prescription contraception for all British Columbians by the end of 2022?
Hon. A. Dix: I’m very surprised that — it’s been a little bit — the member forgets the achievements that were achieved by this government and his party under the confidence and supply agreement.
He will know that we took action in 2019 to reduce, for those least able to afford it, PharmaCare premiums. We eliminated those. We worked together on that $105 million commitment that went directly to the pockets of those who needed it most. The elimination of deductibles. There was a deductible, by the way, of $750 if you earned $28,000 after taxes every year. We eliminated it, and we did so together.
I think it’s a serious debate, and I know that the member wants to take part in that serious debate. We’ve made a commitment on this as well. We have delivered on making PharmaCare more affordable, particularly for those who can least afford it, and we will deliver on this.
ACTION ON GAS PRICES
D. Davies: It’s no surprise again that under the NDP, B.C. has the highest gas prices as well as the highest gas taxes in North America. Jim Townley, from right here in Victoria, says: “Am I the only person asking why the average gas price in Alberta is 50 cents cheaper? It seems to me that this is a B.C. NDP tax grab.” Jim also says: “It makes sense, though. The B.C. NDP members just got a 10 percent raise that needs to be paid for by the public.”
As we prepare for the minister to stand up on his soapbox and to give a fluffy speech about nothing, the people need help. The people need help.
When will the people get help?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. And only a member of the B.C. Liberal Party could say that saving people $500 a year on their car insurance is fluff. Only a member of the B.C. Liberal Party could say that moving to $10-a-day child care — 40,000 new spaces, making life more affordable for women in this province — is fluff.
I’d like to remind that member…. He wasn’t here at the time…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …but some of his colleagues were here at the time. It’s important on this International Women’s Day to remind the public, and to remind the members who are new here, like himself, that he belongs to a party that, back in 2002 and 2004, fired thousands of health care workers in this province — most of them women, many of them who were making family-supporting wages that went from an average of $18 an hour to $10 an hour.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, listen.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s the record of his party. And I will put this party’s, our government’s, record of affordability against theirs any day of the week.
M. Lee: Back in 2018, the Premier promised to take action to deal with the highest gas prices in North America. What do we have here in this chamber this morning? Nothing but deflection, but deflection, but deflection by this minister. The Premier has promised to do something about gas prices for four years, but he has done nothing.
Eric Eder from Vancouver says: “Well done, NDP. Record gas prices. Record housing prices. Record grocery prices. What was that about making life affordable? Yet you do nothing but deflect.”
Will the Premier stop deflecting and tell Eric what he is going to do about the record-high gas prices?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, though I must say that I do find it somewhat interesting that that member is talking about affordability, when he led the fight on that side of the House against our efforts to reform ICBC and stop the dumpster fire.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Putting $500, on average, back in the pockets of motorists in this public helps with affordability. The fact that we….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Member, that’s enough.
The minister will continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member says: “Is it only $500?” Well, actually, it’s not, because it was $500, and then it was a rebate, and then it was another rebate, which helped to address affordability.
Then it’s also built on top of removing the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge….
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: And saving families, on average, $1,500 a year. There’s $2,000 saved right there, not including the rebates.
At the same time, this government has invested more in health care so that people have better opportunities for better health outcomes. We are investing in child care, making life more affordable for families, which the business community will tell you that is their number one issue in terms of affordability, attracting people to this province, which has one of the fastest-growing economies in North America, all under a government that puts people first, not tax breaks for corporations.
G. Kyllo: Highest gas prices in North America. The highest taxes of any jurisdiction in North America. That is on this government. The Premier simply shrugs his shoulders as folks are dealing with skyrocketing gas prices, on top of the high cost of living under the NDP.
Other Premiers are keeping their promises, while this Premier takes a $40,000 pay raise — a $40,000 pay raise — and then leaves British Columbians to fend for themselves, suggesting they simply take the bus.
Well, Premier, people like Shane Howe of Nanaimo aren’t buying it: “I pay taxes for the transit service, but there’s no transit near me. The NDP need to wake up and give British Columbians a break.”
When will the Premier take some real action on sky-high gas prices for people like Shane?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I must admit that I do find it somewhat interesting that he mentioned transit in his question, because he’s part of a party that, when they sat in this House, did a clawback of bus passes for people on low incomes.
Once again, I’ll take this opportunity….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Member, you are wasting your time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Actually, the only sad display is the record of that side of the House, over there, when they were on this side. When you think back, on International Women’s Day, to remember what they did to women in some of the lowest-paid jobs in this province at that time — mass layoffs….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, Members. You have made your point. That’s enough. Thank you.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …mass layoffs that saw women who were earning family-supporting wages, with pension benefits, laid off.
Lost those benefits. Lost those wages. Had their lives disrupted upside down to satisfy their wealthy backers. That’s the record of that government.
We have, right from day one, put people first, put families first, whether it’s the child opportunity fund, which puts money back in the families right across this province, whether it is child care fees, which benefit predominantly women, whether it’s reforming ICBC.
I know that they don’t like to hear that, hon. Speaker, but guess what. They’re going to have to hear it, because we put money back in people’s pockets, and we’re going to continue doing that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the question.
J. Sturdy: Four years after promising to help, all the Premier has managed to do is deliver a website. This website, according to the Premier, will prevent gouging. Well, it’s not working. Residents in the Sea to Sky certainly feel like they’re being gouged, and the Premier’s website is not providing any protection.
Bob Brant says: “The Premier promised action. He has not fulfilled this promise.” When will the Premier deliver on his promise and give consumers some relief beyond a mere website?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again, because you basically keep asking the same question, I have no trouble giving the same answer. We’re happy to give the same answer and to remind you of the work and the effort that this government has put into making life more affordable for families in this province.
I also want to remind the member that the issue of gas prices is global. Gas is not high just here; it’s high everywhere. Down in Los Angeles, for example, it’s more than $5 a gallon, which is more than $2 Canadian a litre.
It’s because of what is going on in Ukraine. It is because of…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
But let’s be clear. This government has been dealing with affordability on the whole spectrum of costs that families face.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
The minister will continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: He says he’s not getting an answer. Well, I don’t know what part of a $500 saving, on average, for your car insurance, that helps make your travel costs cheaper, hon. Member…. It’s a shame you don’t understand that, in the same way that child care costs coming down puts more money back in the pockets of families, making life more affordable.
All of those initiatives by this government are about making families’ lives affordable. That’s what we’re going to continue doing. It’s a shame they don’t understand that.
LNG DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
AND COMMENTS BY PARLIAMENTARY
SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
E. Ross: Yesterday in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development made some quite astonishing statements — quite paternalistic, quite condescending — towards First Nations in B.C., who actually came up with the idea for LNG development as an export to Asia. He stood in this Legislature and told me that our community’s vision — and many First Nation communities around B.C., their vision — for LNG, the plan for it to lift First Nations out of poverty, was wrong, unethical and damaging.
Interjection.
E. Ross: It’s in Hansard. It’s in the Blues. Read it.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
E. Ross: Read it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: The member has the floor, please.
Continue.
E. Ross: This is despite the fact that LNG development has brought success to many First Nations around B.C., from Prince George to Kitimat to Gitga’at to Kitkatla, and they’ve addressed their social issues with the proceeds.
He also went on to talk about how we should be thinking about our children’s children’s future, like First Nations leaders haven’t been thinking about that. Why do you think we did this? It was because we wanted to keep our children out of going into government care, out of going to prison, out of ending up in prison — keep away from prison, keep off the streets and keep them from committing suicide.
This is so condescending and paternalistic. I expect this from the Indian Act in Ottawa but not from this Legislature.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Please ask your question.
E. Ross: Thank you, Hon. Speaker.
But there was a moment of honesty. He did say this: “All indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.” I’m sure my band would be interested to hear that, because we’re actually developing Cedar LNG. I’m sure Nisg̱a’a LNG would be interested to hear that, the $55 billion project that they just announced.
My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Does this minister agree with her parliamentary secretary, with the comments regarding LNG, in the fact that there is no future for LNG expansion in B.C.?
Mr. Speaker: Solicitor General.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please. He hasn’t even started yet. Take it easy. Easy, easy, easy, Members. Thank you.
Minister will continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, Hon. Speaker.
This government has brought forward Clean Energy B.C., a comprehensive plan for energy for the future of the province of British Columbia. LNG is a part of that, and that is a plan that this side of the House is proud of and working hard to implement.
Mr. Speaker: The bell ends question period.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report Fraud Risk Management: Office of the Comptroller General.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 8, the Hague convention amendment act.
In Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 8 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
(HAGUE CONVENTION ON
CHILD AND
FAMILY SUPPORT) AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill makes amendments to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, needed to implement the 2007 Hague convention on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance in British Columbia.
The convention is an international treaty that applies to setting, changing and enforcing child support obligations when parties live in different countries. The convention clarifies which country’s laws apply to a case, provides common application processes and facilitates cooperation between countries. The convention operates in a similar way to how the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act currently addresses support matters when parents live in different provinces and some international countries.
When brought into force, the amendments will allow the convention to become part of British Columbia law and make the changes needed to use the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to administer convention applications. The amendments are important to British Columbians because they will make the convention available to British Columbia residents, increase the number of countries that British Columbia can work with regarding international cross-border support matters and improve the ability to collect international child support owed to British Columbians.
The bill also includes minor related amendments to the Family Law Act that facilitate the expansion of the ministry’s child support recalculation service. The child support recalculation service offers a no-fee way for parents to update their child support obligations to ensure that they remain current with changes in parents’ income levels.
M. de Jong: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and to the Attorney for the remarks as well.
Lest there be any suspense, I can advise the House that the official opposition is supportive of the initiative set out and contained within the provisions of Bill 8 and the enshrinement of the Hague convention pertaining to child and family support payments. I thought I might take a few moments in the course of the discussion to point out why the opposition and, I presume, why the government believes this is an appropriate initiative and worthy of this House’s attention.
Although it probably hasn’t felt like it in the past couple of years, the world is an increasingly mobile place, with people moving about in ways that historically haven’t necessarily been the case. The idea that families…. Well, first of all, the traditional notion of the family has obviously changed, and families do break up.
There are often children involved, which leads to custodial arrangements made — sometimes shared custodial arrangements, sometimes not. It is not unusual for one of those spouses, whether it is the custodial or non-custodial parent, to relocate to another country in the world.
That doesn’t alter all of the traditional challenges that confront parents with respect to raising children and the needs of the family involved with children. But it can lead to, and has created some, very challenging circumstances for people who are seeking to ensure that children receive the support that they are entitled to generally but, then, entitled to pursuant to a decision of a court, either in this country or elsewhere.
I think out of that, the recognition of that challenge, the discussions took place in the Hague in the early part of this century that led to the agreement in 2007, which is the genesis of the legislation that we have before us today and conventions out of the Hague relating to maintenance and support for children and families; custody; adoptions, international adoptions; the abduction of children, which sadly we see periodically to tragic effect and is a by-product of that similar degree of mobility.
Particularly in a country like Canada, which happily has a positive track record for welcoming people from all over the world, this means that frequently people have roots, contacts in other countries and sometimes return there. That’s entirely appropriate. It becomes problematic only when it leads to or interferes with the custodial parent’s ability to look after a child. That’s what I think Bill 8, and the Hague convention that it attaches to B.C. domestic laws, is intended to address.
Two particular aspects to this, or two situations where this arises. The recognition of foreign orders. A parent who has secured a maintenance order for a family, for their family, for their child in another jurisdiction is now in a position to have that order recognized — or will be, eventually, following the passage of the legislation — and enforced here in British Columbia. That has been a specific challenge that many have faced.
I’ll speak in a moment about the limitations, because of course, the Hague convention has not been adopted universally by every country. I think we’re up to about 43 countries at the moment. Canada is in the process of ratifying and doing the work necessary within Canada to ensure that it is applicable across B.C.
That’s, obviously, one situation in which the convention and Bill 8 will be helpful. The second scenario, of course, arises when a family breakup has occurred within British Columbia and a court in British Columbia has made orders relating to custody and maintenance for the family and maintenance for the child, and the person obligated to make payments leaves the jurisdiction and decides to live elsewhere.
Now, that is not to say that there aren’t legitimate reasons for people to relocate and find work or build a life elsewhere. But equally, it is important for people to understand that once the court has made that decision and made that order, those obligations exist and follow — in this case, in my example — the non-custodial parent, wherever they are.
That obligation, either morally and now legally, doesn’t disappear simply because someone decides to leave British Columbia or leave Canada. This additional tool will be, we hope and believe, of great use to custodial parents, who will largely be responsible for pursuing these obligations on behalf of children. It will be a very useful tool, particularly in the countries that are signatories to the convention and where procedures will exist to ease and facilitate the registering of a B.C. order in that foreign jurisdiction and have it enforced pursuant to the laws of that foreign jurisdiction.
Those are, broadly speaking, the two scenarios that this legislation, this convention, the Hague convention, will be of great assistance to folks here in British Columbia.
We have within Canada a system by which families are able to enforce these orders. The Attorney, in his opening remarks, second reading remarks, referred to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, which these provisions amend to ensure conformity with the convention and to adopt the provisions of the Hague convention. That has proven to be an exceptionally useful means by which parents can, on behalf of their family and their children, ensure that support and maintenance obligations are met.
It’s legislation in British Columbia that, I think, dates back to the early 2000s. Again, it is a system that has evolved over time. Everything I said about the mobility of people on an international scale we can multiply ten- or 100-fold when it comes to mobility of Canadians within the country. People are far more mobile than they used to be. It’s not unusual for people to, for various reasons, relocate from one province to another.
Given the unique constitutional construct of our country in the past, it has been very challenging for families who have either received orders elsewhere and need them enforced in B.C. or received orders of the court in British Columbia and need them enforced elsewhere in Canada. But happily, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act addresses that and now will do so, following the passage of this legislation, on a broader international scale.
I suppose it’s worth pointing out — and someone might ask about — the length of time it has taken to get to this point. I noted a few moments ago that the original agreement in the Hague dates back to 2007, as a result of discussions and negotiations that took place in the Hague at that time.
I noted, when I was checking into Canada’s status with respect to the convention, that the first countries to ratify and adopt the Hague convention were Norway and Albania in 2013. I wouldn’t have…. I’m of an age where my thoughts around Albania are still rooted in Cold War descriptions of an isolated country in that part of Europe. Yet in this case, Albania joined with Norway to be the first adherents to the convention.
I would note in passing, on this day and at this time in our world’s history, that in the same year, either the second or third country to ratify the Hague convention that we are now dealing with was Ukraine in, I suppose, yet another demonstration of their independent status — an articulation of their independent status that now, sadly, seems very much under threat in terms of the activities taking place in that part of the world: the entirely unwarranted invasion and intrusion of the Russian state into Ukraine.
My understanding is that today there are 43 countries who have either ratified or are in the process of ratifying and adopting the Hague convention as it relates to family support, child support.
When we get to the committee stage of the debate…. I’ll alert the Attorney that I’m not anticipating asking for a clause-by-clause description of the Hague convention. But it might be helpful for him, for us and for the committee, at the time, to hear from him about the practical means by which this will operate in British Columbia in terms of the registration of orders and the taking of orders elsewhere. There is, under the terms of the treaty, a central authority that is designated in Canada. We already have one of those as it relates to interjurisdictional orders.
But laying out for us, in these early days, what the Attorney and government’s objective is with respect to how practically this is going to take place in terms of the obtaining of an order within B.C., or bringing an order from one of the reciprocating countries, and how that will be enforced under the provisions of the Hague convention here in British Columbia.
I’ll probably ask, also, for the Attorney to provide some thoughts on the countries that are not, thus far, signatories, adherents to the treaty. In that regard, I’ll probably be less abstract than that. We know, within British Columbia, where the flow of immigration tends to come from. We know where the largest groups of people travel from. In some cases, that leads to circumstances where, when a family breakup occurs, someone leaves and returns to that country.
I’ll be interested to get the Attorney’s thoughts on where he sees…. When I say “gaps,” it’s not a…. All the things I can try to blame the Attorney and the government for, I can’t blame them for whether a country has or hasn’t become a signatory to the treaty. But it is likely something that he is alive to and will be in a position to tell the committee — that even with the convention fully in force, it will not cover circumstances where orders arise out of certain jurisdictions or where people return to certain jurisdictions as a way of escaping the reach of the courts in B.C.
It’s not an easy thing at any point in our history. We are, sadly, at a state when the world’s history seems to be reverting to darker times. But getting a collection of nations together to agree upon a set of rules that will guide the creation and enforcement of orders that relate to a family breakup is not an easy thing. It’s further complicated by the fact that within many of those countries, Canada included, the constitutional authority for those matters is divided up into subnational components. That is certainly the case here in Canada.
I don’t say that as criticism. It’s just a fact, a constitutional fact and historical fact. So it is not a simple thing. We are moving further along that path. I’m not going to, when we get to committee, ask the Attorney to provide some ironclad commitment around a date upon which all of this will be fully operational in Canada, because much of that is beyond his or the government of British Columbia’s control. But I do have some experience with the kinds of fed-prov committees that are struck to oversee and help guide the implementation of this.
I’m hopeful that through his staff, the Attorney will be in a position to provide some thoughts on where we’re at and, at least, some forecasting for when we will see all of the required Canadian jurisdictions to have introduced the required ratification legislation. For the federal government, which, I believe, following that, has one more step that it must take…. We can explore that in committee as well.
On balance, I think that this is a worthwhile initiative, one that has been long in coming and flows from work begun by people long ago and in a place across the ways. I was reminded by officials that Canada played, happily, a leading role in drafting and forging the agreement that gave rise to the convention in 2007. That is something that I think all Canadians can be proud of. And I believe that today, British Columbians can be content and should be supportive of the efforts to take that convention and embed it in the body of British Columbia law.
B. Bailey: I rise to speak to Bill 8, which is ratifying the Hague convention on child and family support amendment act, 2022. The Hague child support convention is an international convention that applies the setting, changing and enforcing of child support duties when parents or guardians live in different countries.
Implementation of the convention will benefit British Columbians in several ways. It’ll increase the number of jurisdictions that B.C. can work with regarding cross-border child support matters, making it easier to enforce and collect child support payments. It will also streamline and add certainty to the process of international child support cases by standardizing processes, forms and timelines and using public central authorities that help people navigate the system.
Every convention country designates central authorities that work with authorities in other countries within the same framework to facilitate document processing and support fund collection and transfers. There’s a lot we could talk about in terms of the logistics of this, but I think it’s more powerful if we talk about the experience of real people.
I’ll share with you the story of Donna Star. Donna is a mother of four, and she certainly knows the struggle that people are under when a parent obfuscates their responsibilities and leaves the country. Donna’s ten-year-old was fighting cancer. Her 14-year-old daughter is a special needs child coping with a cognitive disability. Her 17-year-old daughter, who was once an A student, was struggling with depression, and her 19-year-old son had substance abuse challenges and was on a methadone program.
In the midst of all of this, her ex-husband, who had a responsibility to provide child support to his family, sold his house, cashed his RRSPs and left the country. At the time that he absconded, Hans Mills was under court order to pay his ex-wife $2,235 per month for child support.
“Financially, emotionally, physically and spiritually, I am approaching bankruptcy,” Donna says in a Toronto Star interview. “But if I go down, the kids go down, and I can’t let that happen.” Donna was unable to work due to her children’s needs.
Her ex-husband, on the other hand, is now remarried and living in the Philippines, away from Canadian laws. His new wife has sponsored his visa, and he’s a Philippine citizen. But it’s worth noting that the Philippines has just signed on to the Hague convention on child and family support. Donna’s story and the precarious situation that her ex-husband’s actions have put her children in is abhorrent and should not be allowed to happen.
Bill 8, in adopting the Hague convention on child and family support…. The amendment act will provide additional tools to assist enforcement of court-ordered obligations across jurisdictions when both countries have signed on to this convention. And there are many. This is an important bill for all those parents who are seeking relief from the terrible practice of leaving the country to avoid obligations to children.
In the end, these cases aren’t really about two feuding parents who once loved each other and are now fighting about money. It’s really about children having the support that they need to ensure that they don’t only survive but they thrive. It’s about ensuring the best interests of the child remain the focus in family law, both domestically and internationally.
I’m happy to support Bill 8.
Hon. G. Chow: Happy International Women’s Day, Madam Speaker.
I’m speaking to my riding, Vancouver-Fraserview, which is situated in the southeast corner of the city of Vancouver and is on the traditional unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples — the Musqueam, the Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation — with whom we share this land and hospitality.
Now, the boundary is bound by Fraser Street to Burnaby. It’s a big riding for a city: 49th Avenue to Fraser Street. It is a predominantly residential area, and we have a new west end of Vancouver coming up in my riding that is called the River District. It is one of the newer districts and is actually quite affordable — “affordable” — and it is attracting a lot of families.
I’m speaking to this act because it is a good, timely act. I’d like to thank the Attorney General for bringing this forward. As previous speakers have said….
Oh, I would also like to thank my constituency assistants, Kimmy Kular and Forest Chu, who just joined us a few weeks ago, for doing all the work. Without them, I wouldn’t be able to…. It would be very difficult for me to carry out my work. I wouldn’t say they’re indispensable, but certainly, they are very helpful. I would say indispensable — and intractable, sometimes. Anyway, hi, Kimmy and Forest. Nice to have your help.
So the 2007 Hauge convention for child support is an international treaty that assists with the setting, changing and enforcing of child support obligations when the parties live in different countries. The convention clarifies which country’s law applies to a case, uses the same application process for all of the countries and facilitates cooperation between the government entities that assist parties from all countries.
Canada signed the convention in 2017 and, in 2019, passed legislation. It has made it possible for individual provinces and territories to enact their own implementing of the legislation, so this is where we are at today. Thank you, again, to the AG for bringing it forward.
I think, as the previous speaker said, this applies to 43 countries. Now, all those are basically a statistic, but what is really important is that this legislation is going to help many constituents. I think it’s going to help, provincewide, up to 1,000 people.
In my particular case, I have a constituent, Kim, who has been corresponding with my office for help because she’s owed child support payments to the tune of $15,000. Her partner skipped the country during the pandemic, so according to Kim, the implementation of this legislation is the only way she will be able to collect these outstanding payments.
Again, it is very important legislation. We’re here to help people — not just, well, making life affordable but also making life doable. I think this is very important. I’m very proud of our party for bringing this in and enacting this. I definitely support this act. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, yes. I just wanted to thank my critic opposite for his thoughtful remarks and road map of our discussion that we’re going to have at committee stage. It’s very helpful for me. I always appreciate that he puts in the time and thought and energy in advance, because I think it leads to a better committee stage debate.
I also wanted to thank the member for Vancouver–False Creek and the Minister of State for Trade, on International Women’s Day, for really bringing home the impact of what can seem like quite a technical statute — how this will make a difference for British Columbians, in particular women. When a partner skips out and isn’t paying child support, it disproportionately affects women. So our hope, certainly, is that this will benefit and make life better for many families across British Columbia.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, to be considered at the next sitting after today.
Bill 8, Attorney General Statutes (Hague Convention on Child and Family Support) Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading, Bill 9, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.
BILL 9 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.
Amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act in this bill would advance two changes related to the civil resolution tribunal. Firstly, the amendments would replace the current judicial oversight mechanism for small claims disputes, which can currently lead to a complete rehearing of the matter heard in the civil resolution tribunal again in Provincial Court. This process will be replaced with judicial review in the B.C. Supreme Court, which is the same mechanism used for all other areas of the civil resolution tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Secondly, the amendments would give the tribunal authority to resolve disputes about ICBC decisions assigning responsibility for vehicle accidents when an applicant is not also making a claim for benefits or damages. This change will create new access to an independent, accessible, speedy and inexpensive forum for resolving these disputes.
The bill will also amend the Legal Profession Act and the Notaries Act. The Law Foundation and Notary Foundation both earn their revenues primarily through the interest earned on lawyers’ and notaries’ pooled trust accounts. These non-profit foundations then use those funds to support important programs and services across B.C. in the areas of legal education, legal research, legal aid, law reform and law libraries.
These proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act and Notaries Act would give the boards of governors of both foundations the respective authority to approve the interest rates and service charges on lawyers’ and notaries’ pooled client trust accounts. The purpose of these amendments is to assist the foundations in protecting the revenue streams to allow them to continue to provide funding for so many important organizations and projects right across this province.
M. de Jong: Thanks again to the Attorney. In the life of this place, there are ways and means of communicating support. Sometimes oppositions communicate their absolute opposition, occasionally their support and, very rarely, their enthusiastic support. This probably falls somewhere in the middle.
I will say this to the Attorney: the opposition is not going to oppose passage of the bill at second reading, but we’re going to have some questions around the rationale, particularly with respect to the amendments relating to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. I’ll go through some of the thoughts and questions at this stage.
There has been pretty healthy debate in this chamber between the Attorney and, particularly, my colleague from Vancouver-Langara about the creation of the civil resolution tribunal. I’m not proposing now to revisit that in all its glory. We have the civil resolution tribunal. It is here. It is a fact, and it is operating. What we now see is the Attorney and the government making some changes to those operations and to the jurisdiction.
The first area that the Attorney has commented upon, and it’s dealt with by Bill 9, relates to that exercise of judicial oversight, as he said, and the fact that rather than a party to a dispute who is dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal having that matter referred to the Provincial Court for, as it were, a rehearing — as lawyers, I still occasionally like to say the trial de novo; judicial oversight will be exercised by the Supreme Court of B.C., making use of its judicial review jurisdiction.
The question that I’m sure the Attorney General pondered in deciding to sign off on this legislation is whether or not that approach is consistent or likely to advance or frustrate objectives around access to justice, which the Attorney has spoken about in the past and, I think, recognizes that it remains a challenge for citizens, particularly those engaged in disputes that involve what we would, I guess, describe as smaller amounts of money. But $5,000 for most people is not an insignificant amount of money. We’re talking about that small claims jurisdiction, as we occasionally still refer to it.
The question that I’ll explore with the Attorney when we get to the committee stage is whether or not he is concerned that the principle of access to justice, in cases where the dispute involves those lesser amounts of money, is going to be compromised merely because of the challenges associated with initiating a judicial review to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Attorney General, in his remarks, has already pointed out that that is not an uncommon procedure as it relates to other administrative tribunals.
I think that’s true, but the jurisdiction that the civil resolution tribunal is assuming here is one that is very much dedicated to providing a venue for people with disputes involving smaller amounts of money, no less important to them, and no less capable, I would suggest, of eliciting an incorrect or reviewable decision from the tribunal. I think all of us would agree that none of our juridical panels, institutions, are perfect. There will be times when a decision is in need of review and should be reviewed.
The fact that the decision is being made now to redirect that review to the Supreme Court of British Columbia rather than the Provincial Court will make that more difficult. I rather suspect part of the calculation is that it will become less likely to occur.
Knowing, as I do, the challenges facing the Supreme Court of British Columbia, I have to believe that part of the calculation here is that parties will be less likely to seek review of decisions of the tribunal because it will just be more difficult/more expensive, to do so. That is an issue that I’m sure the Attorney anticipated would be the subject of discussion when we get to committee stage, and it most assuredly will.
I had the benefit of a conversation, a briefing, with some of the ministers and ministries’ very able staff, who also pointed out an issue that was detected as it relates to the enforceability of decisions by the civil resolution tribunal — which, I’m advised, these amendments will cure. The issue, as I think it was described to me, pointed out that once a notice of objection had been filed by a party to a dispute heard by the CRT, the order became unenforceable.
I’ll use terms that, I suppose, are a little bit dated, but as I understand it, what has arisen is, in the aftermath of a decision by the tribunal, the judgment debtor files a notice of objection. At that point, the judgment creditor is precluded from enforcing the order. Worse, the judgment debtor is not obliged to take any further action, which leaves the creditor — the winner, if you will — with a pretty hollow victory. If that is the case, then that is clearly something that needs to be addressed.
Also, I’d like to know from the Attorney, when we get to committee stage, whether that occurred inadvertently or was the product of a deliberate decision. I can’t imagine it would have been a deliberate decision, because it seems somewhat nonsensical to leave a judgment creditor in that position, but I’m sure the Attorney will understand and be prepared to provide some updates as it relates to that issue.
The question around the tribunal’s involvement as it relates to liability and access to accident benefits is something that we’ll also want to explore. The Attorney will recall that my colleague from Langara raised some of these concerns and issues in past discussions.
Again, what I hope he will be prepared to share with the committee is both the experience of the tribunal thus far, and how that has led to the decision to include these changes and amendments, and the public policy rationale, both in terms of the amendments as it relates to the judicial oversight by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the changes to the CRT and its enhanced jurisdiction as it relates to motor vehicle accidents and access to accident benefits.
At the end of the bill, there are sections dealing with the Notary Foundation and the Law Foundation. I’m going to signal to the House — and perhaps more importantly, at this stage, to the Attorney — that in this case, the objective being pursued here is, I think, an appropriate one, as it relates to trying to generate maximum return on trust accounts that lawyers and notaries are obliged to create and use to safely hold, responsibly hold, clients’ funds.
The challenge, historically…. Of course, it has been worse, in this age of very low interest rates. It’s ironic that we’re having this conversation at a time when that may be in the midst of changing, hopefully on not too grand of a scale, because a lot of people are going to find themselves in difficulty if that occurs.
Finding the mechanism by which trust accounts can generate the interest that funds the two foundations, which then distribute that money to a whole host of worthy causes, is, I think, a worthy objective.
I’m going to have some questions for the Attorney about the workability of the approach selected here, recognizing that the province doesn’t have the jurisdiction necessary to tell a federally regulated bank what interest they’re going to pay on a trust account. I suppose they could with respect to provincially regulated institutions like credit unions.
The vehicle that has been chosen here is the foundation, but as I think I indicated on the previous bill, having the Attorney walk the committee through and describe how, in a practical way, that is going to occur, recognizing that lawyers and notaries across the province have relationships with savings institutions, lending institutions, that are sometimes long-standing that will want to preserve those relationships — and whether the act, in its operation, would prevent them from doing so.
Again, the Attorney’s staff have pointed me to models employed in provinces like Ontario, where individual agreements are negotiated between the foundations and certain lending institutions, and that may be an answer to the possible complication here. But having the Attorney lay out on the record in the committee stage precisely what his and the government’s expectations as it relates to the establishment and, as it were, regulation of interest rates being paid by these institutions on trust accounts, I think, will be important. It’ll certainly be important for the people who are going to be impacted by the legislation.
Then finally, on a similar bent, the one thing I was curious about, and it may be an area…. The Attorney’s answer may simply be that it didn’t fall within his ministerial area of responsibility. But the area I recall that’s particularly being pursued was with the Real Estate Foundation, which has encountered a similar challenge.
Work was done, in the past, to try and address that similar challenge where again, realtors like notaries and lawyers are obliged to keep clients’ money and deposits in trust but really have no incentive or, I guess to be kind, are largely disinterested in the amount of interest those trust funds generate. They don’t go to the lawyer or client. They go to, in that case, the Real Estate Foundation, which again distributes millions of dollars a year to worthy causes.
The Attorney can anticipate a question from me at the committee stage regarding the decision to address these two areas of trust funds and payment of interest on those trust accounts. The agency that, in many ways, sort of led the charge on trying to address this is, as yet, still seeking a solution, which presumably could be pursued in a similar way.
I’m happy to facilitate passage of the bill through second reading into committee stage but will also wish to pursue some of the issues that I’ve mentioned and perhaps others. But I’ve tried to disclose as much as I can about the areas where I think the conversation will focus in committee.
S. Furstenau: Noting the hour, perhaps I can reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate until after lunch.
S. Furstenau moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: The House is now adjourned till 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, ARTS,
CULTURE AND SPORT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 11:09 a.m.
On Vote 44: ministry operations, $167,955,000 (continued).
J. Sturdy: We’ll change tack a little bit from yesterday. I want to talk a little bit about RMI and the mountain resorts branch. As the minister is aware, I’m sure, the three-year commitment to RMI funding expired this year, and I’d look to the minister to understand what the next three-year plan looks like for RMI.
Hon. M. Mark: To the member’s question, we are doing a review of the program and the effectiveness of the program, but in our budget, we have budgeted for the next three years. I welcome more questions, but for the time being, we are reviewing the effectiveness of the RMI.
J. Sturdy: Well, that’s interesting. I’m certain that the 14 communities that are recipients of RMI would be concerned about the idea that it was being reviewed. Or perhaps they shouldn’t be concerned, because it would be in base budget, it would be guaranteed over the longer term, and it would, hopefully, have some possibility of increasing. Certainly, at the current level, I think, it’s $13 million. With inflation rates and CPI, that’s actually a number that is having less value over time. It was also a function of MRDT numbers to some degree, anyway.
Can the minister help me understand what the future of RMI might look like relative to MRDT, and whether there is an opportunity to incorporate CPI into that budget?
Hon. M. Mark: To the member, this was a theme that came up a lot at UBCM, and many of the municipalities that I met with did talk to me about the importance of the RMI. I just want to assure you, when you use the words “the concern about being concerned,” I don’t want them to be concerned. I assure them not to be concerned. There is steady-based funding for the programs.
Partly through having a pandemic and looking at the cost of living, this is a good time to be reviewing the effectiveness of the RMI and the other variables that you mentioned, of the CPI and MRDT, to be factors that we look at in the effectiveness, but I can’t make a determination right now about what the funding looks like. I would just say that we’re doing the review with all of those variables in front of us. I think that’s the way we should be looking at these different programs as we look at tourism ecosystems across British Columbia.
Just because we’ve been investing…. The community economic recovery infrastructure program — that’s across postal codes across B.C. We’re trying to build a domestic tourism base, as the member may have heard yesterday. We don’t have the international travellers. As minister, I’m trying to see the ecosystem, but being very transparent with the sector, especially with the mayors that have raised this in their particular community — that they want assurance and they want a plan — and we’re going to be doing that review.
J. Sturdy: So what I’m hearing is that there is a commitment over the fiscal plan to maintain, at the very least, the base funding? I see the minister nodding. That would be accurate?
Hon. M. Mark: Yes.
J. Sturdy: I’m sure that the communities will be relieved, if nothing else, about that commitment.
Recognizing that the expenses, or what is expended under RMI, needs to be approved by the province — the minister doesn’t need to provide it right here, but could I get a definition of what are eligible expenses under RMI? What are those actual expenses? If she could provide that to me in writing at a later date, that would be great.
Are those eligible expenses being reviewed, because I know there is some issue with what is allowable and what is not allowable. Is that part of the overall review? What is the timeline on that review?
Recognizing, as well…. If I could just pivot a little bit back to MRDT, communities have obviously not had the revenue numbers for MRDT over the last several years. Will communities and tourism associations be made whole in this fiscal plan, associated with those loss of hotel revenues?
Hon. M. Mark: To the first part of the member’s question, yes, we are going to be reviewing expenses. We will give you a list of the definition of expenses. We will be looking at what is an eligible expense. It will be a part of the review. The timeline of the review will be by the end of next fiscal.
With respect to the MRDT, some MRDT was collected in the last round. Part of the efforts that the operators made…. For those of us in the last year, it was nice to see people going and staying in hotels, and us getting vaccinated and making our way back to support the hotel operators, etc., in the resort communities. We provided some funding to help offset their loss.
Overall, our strategy has been, and our commitment has been, to support tourism with over a half a billion dollars to support the small and medium business owners, to support the major anchor attractions — all of the things that drive the local economy around tourism.
I hope that helps address the member’s questions. I think as we see the vaccination rates, we’re going to see more people occupying our resort communities and that more MRDT will be collected. The forecast that was given yesterday, through quotes from Destination B.C., is that we’re going to start to see a full recovery in 2024, based on what Destination B.C.’s data is saying.
J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I think it’s important to note, though, that if it’s 2024 before we get full recovery, there are MRDT losses going forward for a number of years. It’s not just resort communities. It’s any hotel, any community that has a hotel tax across the province.
If I can, I’d like to move on to the mountain resorts branch responsibility, which is now in this ministry. I want to bring the minister’s attention to a local issue for me, and that’s the master development agreement for Whistler-Blackcomb. The master development agreement, as part of it, allows Blackcomb Mountain and Blackcomb Skiing Enterprises to operate in Blackcomb Glacier Provincial Park under park use permit 102525. Part of that permit requires that there be public access through the controlled recreation area to public lands beyond.
The quote is a part of the master development agreement, or perhaps, actually, it’s the park use permit. The permittee “shall provide free public access through the Blackcomb ski area and the permit area for both winter and summer access to and from Blackcomb Glacier and Garibaldi parks.”
Now, that has not been the case for the last 32 years. There has been a minor, minor allowance which gives a couple-hour window for uphill access through the controlled recreation area into Blackcomb Provincial Park or Garibaldi Provincial Park, and it’s just, frankly, not acceptable that this is all that’s happened.
There are two questions here. Is this progress adequate as far as the minister goes? Or will the minister provide the developer with written notice that they are in breach of the agreement and require a remedy within a limited amount of time? Hopefully, it’s within the next several months, because this has been going on far too long.
There is also a need to access Russet Lake in Garibaldi Provincial Park and an agreement with the Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia to build a bridge across Fitzsimmons Creek. But part of the requirement there is that there needs to be access to parking in what they call lot 8 for summertime use specifically. Whistler-Blackcomb — or Vail now, I guess — controls that piece of property but is obligated to reach an agreement to allow for parking, and they have not done that, to this date.
What it has done is limit the opportunity for the Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia to raise the several hundred thousand dollars that they need in order to build this bridge. This may be a little too in the weeds for the minister at this particular point. I would be willing to accept a written response.
Along with that, I’d also…. There’s a revenue-sharing agreement with a master development agreement for Líl̓wat and Squamish Nation, I’d like to understand what revenues have been shared with Líl̓wat and Squamish over the last number of years, recognizing that there’s also been reduced revenue as a result of the pandemic. Will that shortfall be made up to the First Nations as a revenue transfer?
Hon. M. Mark: I take great interest in my new responsibilities and reading the heritage act and all my permitting and statutory roles, so I’ll take the question on notice. We’ll get back to you in writing and answer the three questions that you raised.
D. Ashton: To the minister and to her staff, the KVR railroad trail is incredibly important to the Okanagan and to all of British Columbia. The Adra Tunnel is a tunnel that we have spoken about, refurbishing it so that it can have traffic going through it, walking and bicycle traffic. The Kenyon family and their friends and volunteers have made a huge step to making the restoration possible.
The heritage value of this is incredible, along the KVR trail. It’s a wonderful, wonderful opportunity for Tourism, through TOTA, through FLNRO and through Environment. If everybody could work together, there is a great possibility that this tunnel can be reopened.
Minister, I would just ask that if we could help out the regional district, TOTA, the Kenyon family, their staff and all of the volunteers that the Kenyon family has pulled together to make this reopening possible. There is a large contribution coming from the private sector. With what has happened with the Othello Tunnels on the Coquihalla, this provides another opportunity and another enhancement along the KVR trail for the Adra Tunnel, which works in conjunction with the Little Joe Tunnel, which is open on the KVR. It is a wonderful opportunity, and I would ask if you can work with the other ministries to make it possible.
Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member for the question. We didn’t have a chance to meet on this, the member opposite and myself, but my staff did meet, with great interest, to see how we can assist on the project moving forward.
The member, I hope, can appreciate that there are a lot of jurisdictions involved, so it’s not as easy as it might seem, when we think about parks and rec and FLNRO and different roles, but I am committed to bringing the parties together. I appreciate the recreational value. We also have to recognize the safety piece. The member opposite referred to the Othello Tunnels happening by Coquihalla. So there are some factors to consider.
The other commitment I’ll make is that when we see program opportunities that would be helpful to the member’s constituents, we’ll be happy to pass that forward. It might be best just for us to follow up again, as we committed to before — and either meeting together or a letter in writing, whatever the member prefers.
S. Cadieux: Good morning, Minister and staff. I’m just going to move on to the sport component of the portfolio for the last few minutes we have today.
I have two questions that I’m hoping the minister can provide an answer to here in the short time we have left. Then I’ll read into the record four other questions that perhaps we can get a response to, in writing, if that would be all right. For the Chair, note that we will get through this just before we have to sign off for the morning.
First question. Specifically with respect to the budget, the provincial sport organizations, led by Sport B.C., made some pretty comprehensive presentations to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, recommending a $12 million increase in sport funding, which is not in the budget. Understanding the circumstances that we’re in currently and the challenges that have been posed over the last couple of years, the PSOs do have ever-increasing responsibilities, without increasing capacity or resources.
Particularly, safe sport, diversity, equity and inclusion are key pillars of work for those agencies as well, which are both priorities for government but also priorities for the organizations themselves and for sport in general. Without increasing resources, they’re not going to be able to meet those commitments. It doesn’t look, from the budget, that an increase is forecast for the next couple of years either. How does government expect the sector to meet those targets in those important areas?
Hon. M. Mark: I welcome the new role of my colleague. She and I both care deeply, I think, about equity. As Advanced Education Minister, I always said that education was a great equalizer. I think sport is a great equalizer in many ways. The member opposite has probably heard from me that rugby saved my life.
All of those local sport organizations have been unsung heroes in the middle of this pandemic, thinking about all the kids who couldn’t go out and play. My daughter just played rugby on Sunday, and she was thrilled to get back. So we know the value of sport on our mental health, our well-being, our wellness and all of those pieces.
I really want to recognize Sport B.C. They were champions. This is the first time that they’ve ever come together to lobby government and get in front of the select standing committee. I just applaud that effort, because a lot of people are experienced lobbyists. They have access to government; they know how to make the case. But these have been grassroots organizations across the province, led by volunteer organizations that have been doing the work from the sides of their desk.
I want the member to know I’m committed to doing the advocacy work. We know we can do more. We’ve handed out grants and supported organizations, like viaSport and ISPARC and other local organizations, with grants. But that consistent funding is required and needed. As minister, I’m committed to doing that work, because as the member recognized, that base funding is important to support equity and inclusion. Safe sport is something that I’m deeply passionate about, and I hope there will be more questions from the member.
Ultimately, I want to leave the member with the commitment that to make systemic change, you have to do the work — and I want to acknowledge Sport B.C. for doing that work — so that it isn’t kind of a piecemeal approach across the province.
S. Cadieux: Thanks, Minister. We will undoubtedly have conversations in the future about the work and the ongoing efforts.
Similarly, in the $30 million that was announced for non-profits through the Vancouver Foundation, will non-profit sports organizations and community centres delivering sport — like PISE, and PacificSport in the Fraser Valley — be eligible for those grants? What will be the criteria? They have not been eligible, up to now, for grant funding, but they have been impacted with closure requirements and things over the last while.
That’s the question. If you’ve got the answer now, great. If you don’t have the answer and want to respond, it is also okay if that comes in writing.
Hon. M. Mark: We will respond in writing. The funding stream may have gone through SDPR and not ourselves, so we will clarify which funding stream it came through and get to the bottom line. If it’s not from our office, it’s from SDPR.
S. Cadieux: Thank you. That would be great, Minister.
Minister, the next four questions I’ll just read into the record. If the ministry could respond in writing, I would appreciate that. I recognize that we’re now standing between us and lunch, so we’ll just get these in.
Is the minister involved with efforts to make Vancouver a host city for FIFA 2026? If so, what funding has been allocated for that effort?
Is the minister supporting efforts to make Vancouver a host city for the 2030 Olympics? Has any funding been allocated to that effort?
The ministry has failed to meet service plan targets for unrepresented children reached by sporting programs by nearly 50 percent last year. Obviously, I expect some of that was due to the pandemic, but are there any other factors that caused this? Why have targets been revised down for this year? How is the ministry supposed to meet new revised targets with the same budget from last year?
The challenge, obviously, with looking to do more and to meet the increased demand that’s pent up as a result of pandemic restrictions — I can anticipate — is quite significant for some of these organizations that have had to, as the minister says, pivot repeatedly through the last couple of years. That takes a lot of resources in itself. So with a stand-pat budget, there are concerns about whether or not targets are going to be able to be met.
I would appreciate if the minister could respond in writing to those questions.
The Chair: I’m now going to ask the minister to move the motion.
Hon. M. Mark: Madam Chair, to my colleague’s questions, yes, of course. We will happily get them in writing.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.