Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 10, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 170
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2021 | |
Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, service plan, 2022-23–2024-25 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2022
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Today I get to introduce a constituent who is also on the floor of the Legislature, a former MLA from 1986 to 2001, a former Minister of Finance, a former Minister of Employment and a former Premier. As I say, he’s a constituent, so I still have to listen to him quite a bit, and that’s really a valuable thing. I think everyone will also know he’s a significant business leader in our province, president and CEO of the Jim Pattison Group.
More important than that, in my experience of knowing him, which is about 36 years, 39 years, I think, now — holy mackerel — is that he is a remarkable dad and now a remarkable granddad. It is an amazing thing.
I’d like to introduce to the Legislature former Premier Glen Clark.
M. Starchuk: One thing that I’ve noticed, and one thing that I’ve learned in the House, is: don’t be late to make an announcement. Next Tuesday, my daughter is celebrating a birthday. I will not use the age which she’s turning, but I will say that on Wednesday, she will be closer to 40 than she is to 30. She will know exactly how to take that.
Shannon, have a great birthday on Tuesday. I hope to enjoy it with you.
H. Yao: Unfortunately, I think I started a tradition I didn’t anticipate.
I also have to wish my father-in-law a happy birthday. Tan Yensen’s birthday is on March 19.
I also want to wish my mom a birthday. Sen Zume — her birthday is on March 15.
If I don’t say it today in the House, I’ll be in a lot of trouble when I go back for break week. So thank you for allowing me to have this opportunity.
M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to say hello and welcome my friend, a childhood friend, Kathy Tarny Lockhurst. She’s joined with her mom, Yoland Tarny, and her dad, Laslo Tarny.
I’d also like to thank members from the Hungarian community here in Victoria, Judit Szy and Steven Butz. They’ve helped to put together what will be the first official proclamation to mark Hungarian day, the Hungarian day of commemoration, on March 15 next week.
We know that there are nearly 60,000 folks of Hungarian heritage in B.C., and B.C. is home to the second-largest Hungarian community in Canada. Of course, the community right across the province is diverse, vibrant. They’ve really contributed so much, and we want to recognize all that they’ve contributed.
I ask everybody here in the House, as we mark the Hungarian commemoration day, which looks at the history of British Columbians of Hungarian heritage — to celebrate their stoicism, contributions to the prosperity of this province, democracy worldwide — to celebrate in advance. I ask everybody to wish everybody across British Columbia happy Hungarian commemoration day on March 15.
Hon. M. Dean: It’s my pleasure today to rise and ask the House to join me in welcoming Ms. Hird’s grade 1 and 2 class at Macaulay Elementary School in my constituency, who are watching this virtually. In December of last year, Ms. Hird and her students were kind enough to assist my office in designing our annual holiday cards. We received so many wonderful designs that we selected four for our cards, and we posted all the entries up in the office window.
I want to ask the House to join me in thanking Ms. Hird and her wonderful students for their absolutely beautiful creative designs.
Tributes
ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF
NATALIE WILKIE AND EVE
MAXWELL
G. Kyllo: Early this week we celebrated International Women’s Day, and I’d like to take this opportunity to both recognize and congratulate two amazing, strong young women in my riding of Shuswap.
First, 21-year-old Natalie Wilkie of Salmon Arm, with the Larch Hills Nordic Ski Club, dominated the women’s 15-kilometre classic race with a gold medal win. If that wasn’t enough, she followed up with a second gold medal in the women’s standing para cross-country skiing sprint event. Two gold medals for a small, little community of Salmon Arm is absolutely outstanding. That follows up on a total of five medals that she has won, over her very young career, at 21 years of age.
Natalie, you make both Salmon Arm and the Shuswap region incredibly proud, our province and our country. Natalie, congratulations on an outstanding performance.
Additionally, Eve Maxwell, another young gal — a grade 12 student at Salmon Arm Secondary, a grade 12 wrestler — captured a gold medal in the B.C. High School Wrestling Championships, February 24-26, at Vancouver’s Pacific Coliseum. On top of that, she was actually recognized for the most outstanding match and given the trophy for outstanding female wrestler with the event, a score of 10-0 — not one point scored against her.
These are two incredible, amazing women. I’d like to give special recognition both to Natalie Wilkie and to Eve Maxwell.
SURREY THUNDER HOCKEY TEAM
Hon. H. Bains: My love and interest for hockey started as soon as I arrived in Canada in 1971 — there was a guy named Bobby Orr, the Boston Bruins, the great Canadian teams of the ’70s — and then continued on with Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux.
Then it was limited to playoff hockey and international hockey, when Canada was participating, because of family and job commitments, but that interest, a love, was rekindled again recently. Not by Connor McDavid or MacKinnon. It’s ten-year-old Brayden Bains, my grandson, and the team that he plays for, Surrey Thunder Atom A1. They beat a number of great teams to get to the final tonight.
My colleague the Minister of Jobs and I were able to watch one game. That day, he didn’t realize, they were beating South Delta. Tonight they’re playing another good team in the final, the Chilliwack Bruins. I’m telling you, Chilliwack — watch out.
I want to say this. Their teams can’t just do it on their own. There’s a great team behind them. I want to start by thanking Jeff Shelton and Rona Shelton from Surrey Minor, and a great coach that they have in Brian MacGillivary, along with a number of assistants and other supporters: Avin Gill, Warren McGrath, Chris Brockway, Cailean Paskall, Amin Patel, Dalton MacGillivary, Wendy McGrath, Gurpal Siekham and Sandeep Bains.
I say at the end, please join with me and say: “Thunder, go Thunder!”
Statements
JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I’d just say to the Minister of Labour: you know, the Minister of Jobs is just two seats over from him in terms of hockey inspirations. Anyway, we’ll just set that aside.
Our province, as you know, is really fortunate to have such a vibrant francophone community. Once again this year, March 20, during our break, will be proclaimed Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique. March 20 also marks the International Day of La Francophonie.
There are more than 70,000 francophones and 300,000 French-speaking people in B.C. A virtual event will take place March 11 at 11 a.m. The theme this year is arts and culture, les arts et la culture and antidote à la pandémie, which I think is appropriate today and every other day.
I invite all members of the House, in particular my colleague who represented francophones so ably on the government side prior to 2017, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, to join in the celebration.
Je vous invite donc à célébrer la Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique avec tous les francophones et francophiles de la province. Merci.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M204 — CROWN LAND
RESIDENTIAL LEASE ACT,
2022
J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled Crown Land Residential Lease Act, 2022.
J. Sturdy: I move that the bill intituled Land Amendment Act, 2022, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
This bill proposes immediate action to address skyrocketing residential rent increases on Crown land. Residential Crown land leaseholders are the same as other residential tenants, with the exception that their landlord is the province of British Columbia.
All landlords but the province are subject to the Residential Tenancy Act, which limits rent increases to CPI. For 2022, the maximum rent increase is limited to 1.5 percent. For some reason, the provincial government does not hold itself to the same standard, and they have been subjecting tenants to rent increases that are, frankly, jaw-dropping.
Rent for tenants who live on Crown land is based on a percentage of assessed value of the property. Because of the booming property values in places like the Sea to Sky, tenants are seeing rent increases not of single digits, nor of double digits, but of triple digits. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has acknowledged the problem and last year commissioned a study. However, there has yet to be any meaningful change.
Given that there’s no relief in sight and that huge new rent bills are imminent, I felt it important to propose a solution that will remedy this systemic policy issue that affects residential Crown land renters across British Columbia. This bill will resolve the issue by tying the maximum allowable rent increase for residential Crown land to the policy set out under the Residential Tenancy Act, which designates maximum rent increases as determined by CPI.
It’s only reasonable that government play by the same rules that it imposes on every other landlord in British Columbia. Residential Crown land renters should be treated fairly, and limiting government-imposed rent increases to what is allowed by the Residential Tenancy Act is just the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
J. Sturdy: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M204, Crown Land Residential Lease 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.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
KIDNEY DISEASE AWARENESS
AND KIDNEY MARCH
FUNDRAISER
S. Bond: Northern B.C. resident Robin Work is one of many people throughout B.C. and Alberta beginning to train to walk 100 kilometres in a single weekend this September. They do this as part of the Kidney March, a yearly fundraiser to support kidney health and raise awareness for chronic kidney disease.
Robin Work calls kidney disease a silent killer that can impact people at any age. He is walking to honour the many people who have been impacted, including his own aunt, and who live with kidney disease. Robin’s experience of having a family member with kidney disease is far from uncommon. Four million Canadians, and one in ten British Columbians, have some degree of kidney disease, and most don’t even know it. Many lose up to 80 percent of their kidney function before they are diagnosed. By that point, it may be too late to act.
Today I am happy to lend my support to World Kidney Day, a global campaign aimed at raising awareness of the importance of our kidneys. This year’s theme is “Bridging the knowledge gap to better kidney care.”
I encourage all British Columbians to take the time to learn more about kidney disease and understand their own kidney health. By assessing your risk for kidney disease, you can diagnose it early and often even slow or stop the disease through medication and changes to lifestyle and diet. B.C. Renal also offers a quick and easy online kidney self-assessment as well as many other resources to improve your understanding of kidney health.
Thousands of British Columbians live with kidney disease every day. I want to say a very special thank-you to our health care workers, the selfless donors and others in the kidney community for leading the fight against kidney disease and, ultimately, saving lives.
COMMUNITY FESTIVALS
B. Anderson: This is a shout-out to the architects of fun. Thank you for creating spaces where we can collectively gather, move, play, express and connect.
Festivals are starting to announce their lineups and organize incredible community events in the Kootenays and across the province. I want to extend my deep gratitude for everyone that works so hard to make these events become a reality.
To the organizers, whose vision creates a new world for the willing participants. To the performers, who have worked hard on their craft for years to provide us with unforgettable moments. To the staff, who often work year-round to make the magic happen. To the volunteers, who are the backbone of the festivals. To the harm reduction teams, who keep our well-being at the forefront of our experience. To the vendors, who fill our bellies, quench our thirst and provide an array of offerings that are both practical and indulgent. To the audiovisual teams, who heighten our senses. To the cleaning crews, who work like ninjas to make the experience effortless. To that first dancer on the dance floor, who draws in the crowd to engage in expression, movement and play.
Soon the crowd seems to fold into itself as the bass drops and the beat of thousands of dancers moves rhythmically and flows as one.
Festivals improve community cohesion, reduce social isolation and are central to the cultural, social and economic fabric of our society.
To the architects of fun, thank you. We are so excited to see what experiences you are going to create for us this season and beyond.
This is an invitation to come to the Kootenays and enjoy one of the many incredible festivals that we have nestled in the mountains — Tiny Lights, Shambhala, Starbelly Jam, Blossom Fest, Nelson ArtWalk, Kootenay Pride, Nelson International Mural Festival, just to name a few. I’ll see you on the dance floor.
INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION
T. Wat: On March 21, 1960, police opened fire and killed 69 peaceful demonstrators in Sharpeville, South Africa, who were protesting against horrific apartheid pass laws. In recognition of this heinous act, the United Nations proclaimed this day as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in 1966, and called on the international community to redouble its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination.
This is the mission we carry with us to this day here in B.C. Although we have taken steps to bring forward positive change, the challenges that racial and cultural minorities face in our communities are still very real.
Racism takes many shapes and forms. It sometimes rears its ugly head for all of us to see, like the shocking instances of vandalism and violence and the hate crimes we have seen perpetrated against our Asian, South Asian, Jewish, Black and Indigenous communities. Acts of racism can also include the more subtle things that happen in our public and private institutions each and every day. In the education sector, 75 percent of respondents say they have experienced incidents of racism in school.
These occurrences largely impact young British Columbians. These same individuals are some of the biggest drivers of change, which is why we must all embrace this year’s theme, “Youth standing up against racism,” so that we can empower the next generation and foster a global culture of tolerance, equality and anti-discrimination.
Together, let’s create a province free of racism and racial discrimination.
GINA WATSON AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
D. Routley: I’d like to share with the House an inspiring story of strength from Nanaimo.
Gina Watson spent years on the street, addicted and without her children, before ending up at tent city in Nanaimo in 2018. Even while struggling with her own issues, Gina was known at the camp for being someone that anyone could turn to if they needed help or support. She organized garbage cleanups around the encampment; took shifts in the kitchen, helping to prepare and distribute food; and helped distribute other donations such as tents and sleeping bags. Even though she had only a small tent to call her own, she often used part of her space to hold others’ belongings and to hold and distribute safe supplies like naloxone kits.
Shortly after arriving at the camp, Gina secured a part-time job cleaning rooms at a local motel, something she had been unable to do while on the streets as she had nowhere to store her belongings. She was happy and ready to better herself and begin to turn her life around. Unfortunately, she struggled to maintain the job, as she was still living in a tent without electricity or water.
When tent city shut down and Nanaimo’s new temporary supportive housing opened, Gina finally secured a place to stay with heat, running water and a lock on the door. Just those simple things that so many of us take for granted allowed her to finally break free of her addiction, gain meaningful employment, save money and, ultimately, as of two months ago, finally get her children back.
Our CAs do so much work. I’d like to thank Sarah Miller, my CA, for taking her own time to drive Gina to appointments and to help. All of our CAs put so much out for our communities.
After almost eight years of struggling with addiction and living rough, it took only one year in supportive housing for Gina to get her life back on track — to the benefit of her, her two daughters and our community.
I know that everyone in this House will join me in celebrating Gina’s strength and success and say to her: “Gina, we have your back. Keep on fighting.”
MICAH ZANDEE-HART
AND CANADIAN WOMEN’S HOCKEY
TEAM
A. Olsen: In February, we were lucky to cheer on 215 Canadians competing in the Winter Olympics, 32 of whom were from British Columbia. Of those 32, I’d like to talk about one today.
Micah Zandee-Hart is from Saanichton, in my riding of Saanich North and the Islands, and is now also an Olympic gold medallist in women’s hockey. Her Olympic journey began watching the Canadian women’s team win gold in Salt Lake City in 2002. I think a start for many Olympians is watching their heroes win previously. She’s the first player from Vancouver Island to be part of the women’s national hockey team. Micah played collegiate hockey for Cornell.
Her path to securing a spot on Team Canada was made more difficult in 2021 when she suffered two injuries: a broken hand in January when she was blocking a shot and then a season-ending shoulder surgery, which happened in March, that forced her to miss the world championships last year. After rehab, Micah was healthy and ready to play in time for the 2022 Olympic team.
She made her Olympic debut on February 3 in a 12-to-1 win over Switzerland and tallied her first Olympic assist in a game versus ROC. She would go on to add three more assists to her resume over the course of the games, playing important minutes on a stalwart defensive unit that allowed only ten goals in seven games. Micah’s Olympic journey culminated in, of course, that 3-2 gold medal game win over the United States. This was Canada’s third gold medal in the last four Winter Games.
Congratulations to Micah and all her teammates on the golden Canadian women’s hockey team. You have made Saanich North and the Islands proud and all of Canada proud.
All the best in your future endeavours.
RICHMOND SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENT SERVICE
CLUB
H. Yao: Noah Berger, Tyson Guilmant-Smith, Serena Chin, Ludi Wang, Sarah Cao and Katherine Sau are all part of Richmond Secondary School’s interactive club, sponsored by Ms. Rakshin Kandola. The RSS interactive club’s motto is: “Service above self.”
The club is a service club and a branch of Rotary that focuses on connecting student members with opportunities to help the local community. One of the past projects has been cards for seniors. Student members write cards with Canada Day and summer themes for local seniors. Kindness gestures such as care cards help seniors in our community feel connected. The students prepared and delivered approximately 50 cards.
Another project was a fundraiser for Covenant House. Student members delivered envelopes to classrooms and asked teachers and students for their spare change to donate. The club was successful at raising approximately $70.
On February 1 this year, I was privileged to be invited to speak to the RSS interactive club over Zoom. Without wasting any time, student members fired one question after another on topics such as volunteerism, community leadership, youth engagement, networking and fundraising. I was shocked and impressed by the student members’ eagerness to learn and self-improve. I highly doubt they need to learn anything on leadership from me. Instead of socializing and hanging out with their peers, they demonstrate their hunger for self-improvement by spending their lunch time with their sponsor teacher and each other to explore ways to better themselves.
I was only able to give them one advice: avoid a social pitfall by trying to volunteer for the sake of volunteering, expanding their network or be a leader. Instead, live a life filled with adventures, have courage to ask for help, follow your heart with conviction, and most of all, believe that you’re already incredible.
Live a life so that you can be proud of yourself, and without knowing it, you’ll become a leader that everyone else envies.
M. de Jong: I seek leave to make a continuing introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. de Jong: Well, I’m glad, because I was horrified to come into the House and see someone…. [Laughter.] If I find out that Moe Sihota is hiding over there somewhere….
I am one of the few members who has served in this chamber under two Premiers Clark, and I suppose I wouldn’t be telling the truth…. I had more fun under one of them than the other.
That makes Glen Clark’s achievement no less important, to have served as Premier of the province of British Columbia. We see the pictures that hang in the hall, but those of us who sit here know how difficult a job it is — how difficult a job it is to secure and then how difficult a job it is to do.
It is good to see him here to acknowledge his contribution to this place and to welcome him on behalf of the opposition.
Oral Questions
ACTION ON GAS PRICES
AND CARBON TAX
REBATE
T. Stone: I think it’s a well-established fact that British Columbia has the highest gas taxes and the highest gas prices in all of North America. As gas prices continue to skyrocket, the NDP government is raking in record fuel and carbon taxes without providing any relief for B.C.’s families. Despite years of empty promises, the Premier continues to shrug his shoulders and do nothing.
There is one thing that the Premier could do. One step that he could take would be to return some of the millions of dollars in gas taxes that his government is receiving. He could return some of that to British Columbians through a one-time carbon tax rebate to help lower- and middle-income British Columbians.
The question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier take this action to help families who are struggling with these skyrocketing gas prices?
Hon. B. Ralston: British Columbia is not alone in facing higher gas prices. Right across the country, from St. John’s to Winnipeg to Toronto, and here in British Columbia, and indeed, around the world…. The war has had a huge impact on world prices, and just yesterday, President Biden in the United States has decided to end imports of Russian oil and gas, which will have further upward pressure on prices around the world.
The federal minister here in Canada, the Minister of Industry, has called upon the Competition Bureau to protect Canadians against possible gouging. Unlike the opposition, we believe gas companies should be accountable for markups and price hikes. We brought in the Fuel Price Transparency Act to force the companies to come clean.
Interjections.
Hon. B. Ralston: The members chuckle. It’s something that they certainly never did in their 16 years.
Interjections.
Hon. B. Ralston: Well, let’s just get to it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. B. Ralston: Their newly elected leader said in 2008: “I don’t want to pretend that there’s any magic solutions to the fact that fuel prices have doubled in the past 12 months.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order.
Hon. B. Ralston: He was asked about this question just yesterday, 14 years later — some time to reflect on what he might do, I suppose. His answer was: “Yes, this is what I said, and it’s true.”
So you guys got nothing. You got nothing.
Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
T. Stone: Look at the shiny object. I mean, get serious. Get serious. You know who’s not going to have much of anything left if this government doesn’t take action is British Columbians, who are dealing with these soaring gas prices, and the government is sitting around shrugging.
Every time this government mentions Kevin Falcon, you know what goes through our minds? Call the by-election. Call the by-election so he can sit right here, and you can have the exchange with him in person. When Kevin Falcon was in government, he brought in the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which actually offset carbon tax. A revenue-neutral carbon tax — imagine that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
T. Stone: Imagine that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
T. Stone: Imagine taking carbon tax revenues and offsetting that with personal income tax reductions and small business tax reductions and all kinds of credits and rebates. You know…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question, please.
T. Stone: …the seniors home-renovation tax credit, things like that. What was one of the first things this government did? They ended the revenue-neutrality of the carbon tax.
In fact, with these soaring gas prices, the NDP are actually raking in billions and billions of dollars of extra carbon tax that they’re taking right out of the pockets of British Columbians. Families are being hurt by these high prices, these high gas prices, and they deserve some relief from this government.
One tool, one mechanism, that’s available to this government, which we’re suggesting here today, would not serve to put additional profits into the pockets of gas companies…. This government could use the B.C. climate action tax credit, a tool that Kevin Falcon and the B.C. Liberals created. The government could provide a one-time enhanced rebate…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question.
T. Stone: …that could be implemented in time for the next payment in April. The government could do that, and that would provide relief to British Columbians immediately.
The question to the Premier is this. Will he implement this measure or any other measure that would serve to actually offset these soaring gas prices to help British Columbia’s struggling families?
Hon. B. Ralston: Well, the member for the opposition misreads the history of the carbon tax. It wasn’t revenue-neutral for British Columbians. In fact, it gave over $2 billion to some of the largest corporations in the province.
I want to quote…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. B. Ralston: …a professor at UBC, Werner Antweiler: “The problem is we have a situation in the global market, and no amount of changes to taxes will make that go away. Increasing the carbon tax as planned in April by one cent a litre pales in comparison to the 20 to 30 cents a litre that is essentially the Putin tax that’s coming from the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.
Minister, continue, please.
Hon. B. Ralston: Sorry. I was somewhat distracted by that braying from the other side.
Alberta announced a 13-cent measure. At the same time, the price of gas in Lethbridge, after that announcement, increased by 14.5 percent, proving the point that I just made.
P. Milobar: Perhaps the Energy Minister is unaware, but the Alberta 13-cent rebate does not take effect till April 1. It hasn’t even taken effect yet.
Again, it’s revisionist history at its finest with this government, because if you look at the budgets and fiscal plans 2017-18 to 2019-2020, where there was still clear and concise transparent reporting happening, on page 66, on the carbon tax report and plan, it very clearly shows low-income climate action tax credit per adult, a reduction of 5 percent with the first two income tax rates, a northern and rural homeowner benefit for up to $200. The list goes on and on and on, on how the carbon tax was actually refunded back to people in a way that actually helped their affordability.
They certainly seem infatuated with Kevin Falcon. I do hope they actually call a by-election so they could see him in person in this room, because in 2008….
They like to quote 2008, so let’s look at what the Premier had to say in this chamber in 2008, when gas was going up. You know what the Premier was advocating for? A cap of 2½ cents of carbon tax per litre of gas. April 1, this Premier is going to be charging over 11 cents a litre for carbon tax.
He likes to talk about having options, this Premier. The Premier likes to talk about having options, yet he doesn’t tell us what those options actually are. For 207 weeks now, he has told this chamber he has a plan to lower gas prices.
With the stroke of a pen, the Premier could help families with a one-time enhanced carbon tax rebate.
Will this Premier finally act on his words and deliver the relief that people are looking for through an enhanced carbon tax rebate cheque?
Hon. B. Ralston: The carbon tax is a tax that’s supported by the B.C. Business Council. The CleanBC plan has a program which the industry participates in, and it returns the carbon tax to those companies that achieve a global standard of carbon emission reductions.
I’m not sure whether what the opposition is saying is that they want to reduce the amount of carbon tax available for reducing emissions here in British Columbia. Is that what they’re saying? Is that their policy?
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
P. Milobar: Well, the minister seems to…. I guess it’s not surprising. They’ve ignored their own advice in their budget book about taxes hurting low- and mid-income families in this budget, but the reality is B.C. has the highest gas prices and the highest gas taxes in North America.
We’re about 50 cents a litre currently more expensive than Alberta, right next door to us. Last I checked, the war in Ukraine is impacting Alberta just like it is B.C., but it’s 50 cents a litre less in Alberta. The climate action tax credit, which was created by Kevin Falcon and the B.C. Liberals, was specifically designed as a tool to refund carbon taxes to families. The NDP — one of their first acts was to remove the revenue neutrality of carbon taxes, and now they are raking in well over $1 billion a year in extra carbon taxes. No one knows where it’s all going.
Again, the Premier has repeatedly promised…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please.
P. Milobar: …action on gas prices.
Why will the Premier not use a very clear tool to get money back in the pockets of British Columbians to try to help them with their increased fuel costs in their daily lives?
Hon. B. Ralston: It’s disappointing to hear the member opposite — perhaps not surprising — to argue against a measure, the carbon tax, that has proven to reduce emissions and funds investment in low-carbon innovation.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order.
The minister will continue.
Hon. B. Ralston: The suggestion is that it was revenue-neutral. They weren’t able to explain it back in 2008, and they’re not doing any better job 15 years later. They gave over $2 billion to the biggest corporations in the province. That was their version of revenue neutrality.
TELUS HEALTH SERVICES
S. Furstenau: My colleague and I have been asking the Minister of Health about the corporate delivery of health care in our province and raised our concerns about fees that are being charged to patients. So far, we haven’t gotten clear or direct answers, so I’ll try again.
My question is to the Minister of Health. Does the minister think that health care delivery by a for-profit telecommunications company that generates dividends to shareholders is aligned with the spirit of universal, equitable, public health care?
Hon. A. Dix: For the last several years, we’ve repeatedly taken action to strengthen our public health care system. The member knows this. That action has affected the delivery of care to seniors, primary care, every aspect of our health care system, and it’s involved improving services for people in terms of their wait time and their access to services. It’s why we purchased and brought back into the public system MRI machines.
With respect to the question of the hon. member, what has happened and what’s happening now is consistent with the rule of law in B.C. The Medical Services Commission is reviewing those questions — they started to do that in February — to review and to ensure that everyone in B.C. is acting in compliance with the Medicare Protection Act.
We took measures, as the member knows, in 2018 to bring in regulations that had been passed by the previous government but not brought into force. We brought those regulations into force. We’ll always defend public health care, and we’re doing it now.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: We’ve looked into the health care services that are provided by Telus, and there are a few different programs available.
Virtual care is covered by MSP, and patients access a virtual walk-in clinic. Doctors can prescribe medications, write a requisition, give advice, but no longitudinal care.
MyCare, also covered by MSP, offers in-person appointments, as needed, determined by a virtual screening process. For a $1,000 fee, patients can access annual screening.
Then there is LifePlus. LifePlus offers in-person medical office visits with access to team-based care, like we have come to expect from a family clinic. The annual cost of enrolment in LifePlus is $4,000 for the first year and $3,000 for every year after.
My question is to the Minister of Health. When a for-profit telecommunications corporation charges patients thousands of dollars for what amounts to access to a family doctor, is this in line with what the minister considers to be universal, public, equitable health care?
Hon. A. Dix: The Medicare Protection Act protects our public health care system in B.C., just as the Canada Health Act protects it in Canada. It’s not an issue of amounting to; it’s an issue of ensuring that medically necessary care is available to all British Columbians regardless of income. This has been the basis of the system.
If the members are saying. because this has been the development of public health care in Canada. that it has been defined and provided often by private corporations, including family doctors, effectively that, with public pay.
That is our public insurance system in Canada, and it has worked for us well. It requires improvement. It’s why we’ve invested in 56 primary care networks, 28 urgent and primary care centres, delivered team-based care, added community health centres delivered by non-profit providers in this province. We’ll continue to support public health care for everyone in B.C.
REVIEW PANEL REPORT ON
DRUG TOXICITY DEATHS AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
S. Bond: Yesterday the Premier finally agreed to activate the Select Standing Committee on Health to work across party lines on the opioid crisis in our province. This is an opportunity for collaboration between all parties on a crisis that is killing nearly seven British Columbians a day.
Critically important will be to build on the work that has been done, specifically following the blueprint of the death review panel that was released. This report is the work of 23 public health experts who have provided urgent recommendations with very specific timelines.
Today the Premier has had some time to review the report. Will he now stand and accept the recommendations and timelines for immediate action?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The Premier announced yesterday that we’ll be developing terms of reference for the committee. I look forward to developing those terms of reference in cooperation with the Premier and his office, and I look forward to hearing the opposition members’ ideas on how we can work together to fight the overdose crisis and save lives.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
S. Bond: As I said earlier, we appreciate the fact the Premier finally said that he would activate a committee that could have been activated months ago, as continuously, we heard story after story of people losing their lives in British Columbia to this crisis.
That minister’s answer means nothing when it comes to the recommendations that have been provided. They are specific timelines, specific recommendations. The death panel review provided specific deadlines from April 11 through to September.
The report itself said that this government has not acted with the urgency that is required. In fact, what did this minister do yesterday? Within hours of receiving the report, the minister, despite the fact that a panel of experts brought the recommendations forward, said: “We already know that the 30/60/90-day time frame just doesn’t work.” Within hours of the recommendations brought forward, the minister simply dismissed it.
Actually, what we do know. We know, and it was confirmed in the report, that this government’s approach is not working. Seven people a day are dying in our province.
What could possibly make the Premier hesitate? And today the non-answer by the minister. Why wouldn’t she stand today and say: “Of course, we accept the recommendations. We are going to move to meet those timelines. In fact, this review panel will form the basis of the work done by the Standing Committee on Health”?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Our government has been acting urgently since 2017. We have evolved our response to the terrible loss of life and the increasing toxicity of the drug supply every year since 2017, since the beginning of the forming of this ministry.
We agree with the policy directions that were identified in yesterday’s death panel review report. They align with the work that we’ve committed to and that we have underway: expanding prescribed safe supply, expanding the treatment and recovery system, expanding drug testing and the oversight and accountability of the treatment and recovery sector, in addition to the other work that we’re doing to decriminalize people who use drugs, to expand supervised consumption sites, to add inhalation sites as the method of consumption of drugs has changed and the drug profile and the terrible toxicity has expanded.
As I said yesterday, we’ll work with our ministry to identify where we can meet the timelines that are recommended by the panel. At the same time, we’re not going to give people suffering the loss of loved ones any false confidence about work that we’ve been trying to implement and expanding and amending every week, which has been over the last year and a half — that a 30-day timeline or a 60-day timeline is realistic.
We won’t give anybody in the province false hope. We’ll work as fast as we can, as we have from day one.
S. Bond: What families in British Columbia who have lost loved ones need is this minister, instead of dismissing out of hand an expectation around 30, 60 and 90 days created by a panel of experts…. Instead of dismissing it, she should stand up in this House and tell British Columbians that we are going to do absolutely everything possible to make it work, to meet those deadlines. In the meantime — today, tomorrow and next week — seven people a day are dying in British Columbia.
For the minister’s information, she doesn’t need to take a lot of time working on the terms of reference. They’re done in this report. There is a clear road map about what needs to take place.
This is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of urgency.
Today we are asking this minister to say that she will adopt the recommendations and, before May 9, will table in this Legislature an action plan that meets the recommendation of 30/60/90 days provided by the death review panel.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I appreciate the work of the panel and of the Coroners Service to compile the report. It confirms that the work that we have underway is urgent and vital and absolutely necessary to save lives.
The panel found that the primary cause of death was the increased toxicity of the drug supply. I’ll remind the chamber again. In the 2019 year, the number of overdose deaths fell for the first year since the public health emergency was declared. In the first two months of 2020, deaths continued to fall and spiked terribly, from a 4 to 8 percent toxicity of fentanyl before the pandemic to, in the last month of 2021, 24 to 28 percent toxicity. That has outpaced the ability of our government to add services, which we are doing every week.
Prohibition doesn’t work. We’re tackling that also.
All of the measures identified in the panel report are ones that we are working on urgently. We look forward to the cooperation of all practitioners and this chamber to carry out that work.
L. Doerkson: These are certainly sad and frightening times, to be honest. The people of this province want action on this topic. Since we last discussed this, seven more British Columbians have perished.
The latest death review panel shows that people in my community are not immune from this opioid crisis. The report highlights that rural and remote areas still face systemic barriers accessing key services. The report cites the following challenges: “vast distances between communities; small service centres; the harsher climate with poorer transportation systems, remoteness and isolation; and potentially limited social, educational and employment opportunities.”
Will the minister commit to delivering a 30/60/90-day action plan by May 9 to actually address the systemic barriers that rural communities are facing right now?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: We share the same urgency that is reflected in the coroner’s report, in the death panel review report. We know there is more to do, and we are adding new services in all regions of the province almost every week.
At the start of the public health emergency, we focused on scaling up expansion of naloxone. We then added in medication-assisted treatment. Later, as the emergency response required, we added registered nurses, the only place in Canada where they’re allowed to prescribe medication-assisted treatment. That has got particular benefit for rural and remote areas.
We’re also working with First Nations Health Authority to build and rebuild eight different First Nations–led treatment and recovery centres. That’s got particular benefit for remote and northern regions — the only province in Canada that I’m aware of that is funding directly, through the First Nations Health Authority, to build facilities and to also work with Indigenous leaders around land-based solutions.
In every way, we have modified and expanded our approach, and it has been outpaced by the increased toxicity of the drug supply.
I share the member’s concern, particularly about access and service to rural and remote areas. That’s a foundation of our plan Pathway to Hope, and it’s something that we’re working urgently, with Northern Health and with Interior Health, every day to implement.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, supplemental.
L. Doerkson: I think we’ve discussed this before. Minister, the current approach is not working, and the results are clear. The North is disproportionately represented in overdose deaths. The 23 public health experts of the death review panel said very clearly that a 30/60/90-day action plan is both realistic and urgently needed.
The question is: will the minister act as urgently as the panel has recommended and meet the May 9 deadline to present an action plan?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Our government has been acting urgently. We share the urgency identified in the coroner’s reports. The report also correctly notes that one of the impediments to being able to mount a response to this public health emergency has been impeded by the lack of a system of care for mental health and addictions.
When we formed government in 2017, it was not in place. We’ve been acting to fill all of the gaps in the system of care since then. That is not built in a 30/60/90-day framework. I wish that it could be. We continue to add treatment, overdose prevention, medication-assisted treatment, safe supply, anti-stigma campaigns, applying for decriminalization, working with every health authority.
I’ll take this opportunity to give thanks again to the health authorities that are fighting two public health emergencies, implementing a system of care and rolling out an unprecedented immunization campaign. I think all members in the House would recognize that we’re asking more of our health authorities than we ever have before. We wish that they could work faster. We are there with them and working together.
HEALTH COMMITTEE
TERMS OF REFERENCE AND
TIMELINE
T. Halford: I, like many in this House and many of the families — the 6,007 British Columbians lost, their families — after the report that we saw yesterday would have hoped and would have expected this minister to come into this House today and embrace and support the work that was done by this panel and support the recommendations, the key recommendations that are to save lives.
Seven people a day, and one of the key findings from the coroner: a lack of urgency. What we’ve seen from this minister today is a lack of urgency. I think those families, British Columbians, deserve better than what they’re getting from this minister today. I will say this, and I think we can all agree: time is of the essence.
Yesterday the Premier committed to work on the terms of reference for the Health Committee, and as the Premier knows, this report from the coroner has specific timelines, timelines that are put in place to try and…
[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Please continue.
T. Halford: …curb the dramatic numbers, the tragic numbers we are seeing every single month.
Can the Premier confirm when the committee will be activated, and will he use the panel’s recommendations as terms of reference so we can get to work now, as British Columbians expect, and make sure that we are doing everything we can to support the recommendations that were put out yesterday?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I can confirm for the member that the terms of reference are being worked on. It is our expectation that they will be tabled, that the motion to activate the committee will be tabled on the Monday that we return to this House after the two-week break.
[End of question period.]
Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky has a point of order.
J. Sturdy: I rise on a point of order to clarify the correct name of the bill which I introduced earlier today. That bill is intituled the Crown Land Residential Lease Act, 2022.
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Eby: I present the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for the year ending December 31, 2021.
Hon. G. Chow: May I ask for leave to introduce a member.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. G. Chow: I’m just as surprised as the member for Abbotsford West to find former Premier Glen Clark sitting in the House. Certainly, this brought back a lot of memories for me, because former Premier Glen Clark and former MLA Jenny Kwan were instrumental in helping Vancouver Chinatown to build a museum complex that’s attached to the Chinese Cultural Centre. I know the former Premier probably doesn’t remember, but I remember the sod-turning ceremony well.
The building of the Chinese Cultural Centre is a very passionate project of mine from 1970, ’80 and ’90. Of course, Mr. Premier, we upped the game, and we just, of course, approved the Chinese Canadian Museum. We funded it to a large sum in order to carry on the history. Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to recognize the former Premier, Glen Clark.
G. Kyllo: I seek leave to present a petition.
Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.
Petitions
G. Kyllo: I’m presenting a petition that was put together by a hard-working constituent in my riding, Patsy Vetter, from the community of Enderby, with over 1,600 signatures calling for the government of B.C. to prioritize recruitment of a family doctor, noting the large senior population and the detrimental impacts of residents not having access to a family doctor or timely access to quality health care.
Tabling Documents
Hon. J. Osborne: I move to table a 2022-23 annual service plan for the new Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship. Because my ministry was established after February 22, a service plan is not required for the ministry this fiscal year under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. However, one has been produced to be consistent with the other service plan requirements of the act, and in the spirit of transparency and accountability.
This service plan covers fiscal years 2022-23 to 2024-25, and over the next 12 months, the ministry will further refine the goals, objectives and performance measures as our work with First Nations, communities and stakeholders is undertaken.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion.
Leave granted.
Motions Without Notice
MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY ACT REVIEW SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:
[That Kelli Paddon, MLA replace Janet Routledge, MLA as a Member of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, please seek leave to table this.
Hon. J. Osborne: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table the service plan.
Leave granted.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Now it’s accepted.
Motions Without Notice
MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY ACT REVIEW SPECIAL
COMMITTEE
(continued)
Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, we’ve heard the motion.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act.
In the Committee of Supply, Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2022
(continued)
B. Banman: It is a pleasure to again get in the House and debate Bill 6, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I’ll just recap a little bit, if I may. This bill that is before the House has some serious ramifications for affordability in British Columbia and for British Columbians. This particular bill, as its name implies, is outlined in the budget of 2022, and it brings into force some new taxes that this government has decided to impose upon British Columbians.
Bills like this send a message. They set a tone. This particular one, as I was saying…. While I’m grateful that there will be some relief for those that are in my riding and others that were affected by the floods and that there will be some leeway with regard to the speculation tax for homes that have been affected with that in those areas, that’s about the only real positive that I can actually say about this bill, sadly.
We are going through unprecedented times. Inflation is at an all-time high; gas prices are at an all-time high. The cost of living is skyrocketing, and we know that nearly half of British Columbians are $200 away from insolvency. That was prior to the recent jumps at the pumps.
What this government has done is to basically levy a bunch of taxes which they know — in their own report, in the budget itself — target low-income and middle-class families: single parents that are trying to get their kids to and from school, families that are trying to put food on their table and keep a roof over their head.
At the same time, it eliminates the oversight and gives the ministers and the Premier anywhere from a $20,000- to a $40,000-a-year raise. There’s a message. It says: “We’re going to help ourselves, and we’re going to get lower-income and middle-income families to pay for it. We don’t have to follow the oversight anymore that was applied with regard to ministers and the Premier. We’re going to get rid of that so that we can make sure that we get ours.” The lower-income and middle-class families are going to pay the burden of that price.
It’s shameful. Right now at a time when families are $200 away from insolvency, what wouldn’t they do with $20,000 extra on their bottom line? It’s a slap in the face to people. It’s a slap in the face to families barely clinging on, because it allows this government to increase their pay while doing little to help affordability, and it actually makes life less affordable in British Columbia.
One of the taxes will be a one-cent-a-litre increase at the pumps — like we’re not paying enough already. It also is out of touch. It’s fine to live in the Lower Mainland and on the southern tip of Vancouver Island, where a heat pump will actually work. Rather than just incentivizing that, they’re now going to punish those up north, where a heat pump just won’t work.
When the weather gets, as we’ve heard, down below 25 below, they have to have a secondary source of heat to work. Heat pumps just don’t work there. Even if they did, they most likely are looking at thousands and thousands of dollars to upgrade their electrical systems to be able to make them work.
As we heard from one of the previous members that spoke to this bill, the heating and air-conditioning experts were not even consulted. It is an oversight that should not have happened. Basically, it punishes those that live in rural and northern communities and only helps the people in the Lower Mainland, where this equipment is actually going to be effective and work.
We’re not saying that a heat pump isn’t a great idea. What we’re saying is: why penalize some for where they live, those that actually provide lots of resources that allow those of us in the Lower Mainland the ability to stay where we are and live here in the Lower Mainland and on the southern tip of Vancouver Island?
I think one of the most outrageous parts of this is the assessment to get the sales tax on used cars. We know that those who buy a used car are lower- and middle-class families, generally. If this government thinks that you got a good deal, it says: “No, no, we don’t like that price that you’ve paid. We’re going to tell you how much we’re going to tax you on it.”
At $200, as some…. I think of a single mom that saved up whatever she can to be able to buy a vehicle. And then to be hit with a penalty and then the bureaucracy to prove that that’s actually what she paid for it and have it assessed, it just won’t be worth the hassle, and government knows it.
Government knows that people aren’t going to go through the hoops, the bureaucracy and the paperwork that are required to try to save a few hundred dollars, which right now means the difference of being able to get to work that week. It’s outrageous.
We even heard one of the members in this House basically refer to those types of people as tax evaders. Yet if you pay too much, if you overpay, they don’t say: “Wait a minute. We’re going to give you a deal here. We’re going to reduce the PST on this because you’ve paid way over market value for this particular used vehicle. We’re going to reduce that.” No, no, no. You’re going to get paid either the highest or what the government tells you your vehicle is worth. They basically called a lot of British Columbians cheats. I’ve heard a lot from people that are outraged.
The other one that’s coming in is the marketplace tax, a PST on marketplace, a PST on used goods. What’s next? Garage sale police? Are we going to start going around and finding out who’s advertised a garage sale and start asking them to remit the PST on that? It’s effectively the same thing.
PST on a used pair of jeans that a single mom needs to clothe her children. A PST on a used set of pots and pans. The tax was already paid on these things in the first place anyway. This is an attack on low income, and it’s an attack on middle-class British Columbians.
It also is going to add a tobacco tax. While I agree that a tax on tobacco helps reduce the use of it, it is not lost that most of the statistics will show you that those who consume tobacco products are also low income and middle income. Another tax on the poor.
If you’ve got enough money to buy an electric car, if you happen to be one of the haves and have enough money or happen to be a minister with a nice pay raise, you can go buy an electric car. There’s no PST on that. Here’s a news flash: low income wish they could buy an electric car. They wish they could buy an electric car. Do you think they want to buy a 15-year-old minivan that you’re now going to tell them how much is worth? No. They don’t have that option.
It’s bad enough they are paying more at the pumps. Come April 1 — there’s their April Fools’ joke — there’s going to be another cent, like the prices we’re paying are not bad enough. This, coming from the government that brags and says they are all about low income, the champions of them. As a matter of fact, they give this side of the House a hard time for being heartless and cruel and thoughtless. Yet in the budget, it said right there that it is going to predominantly hurt lower income and middle class, and they did it anyway.
The Finance Minister implemented these knowing full well it was going to drastically affect low-income and middle-income families. I would say that would be more in line with some of the words and names that that side of the House refers to this side of the House with. I think it’s cruel. I think it’s cruel to hurt low-income families this way.
One of the things that bothers me, as well, is that the Finance Minister…. This government has been given the notable award of being the most secret government. There’s an award I wouldn’t want to have — the most secretive government. The Finance Minister is now putting in place that they want to further reduce the transparency of this House and hide government decisions — or the ability to hide. It doesn’t improve transparency; it actually reduces it. It’s like the track record of secrecy that we’ve had thus far hasn’t been bad enough?
The Finance Minister now wants to have the power to make financial decisions that bypass the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board is there for a reason. It’s there to make sure that the taxpayers’ dollars are spent wisely. It’s there as a check. It’s there as a balance.
The Finance Minister is in full knowledge, in my opinion, that she is now bypassing the Treasury Board and will be able to make any financial decisions behind closed doors without the oversight of the Treasury Board. It’s a pattern I find extremely disturbing.
I will remind the House that my role, a critic role, is that of Citizens’ Services, which includes transparency, FOIs and the ability of being able — for the public, the press, members of opposition, members of the Third Party — to check the transparency. Good democracy has this check and balance. Is it tedious? Is it annoying? If I was on that side of the House, I would say it probably is.
It is probably, to me, the most troubling part in this entire bill — the ability for the Finance Minister, without any oversight whatsoever, to be able to make whatever financial decisions the Finance Minister sees fit. It’s appalling, and I believe it is a blatant disregard to the principles that we apply in this House. I think it’s a blatant disregard of good governance and democracy, and every British Columbian should be yelling from the rooftops that it’s wrong.
There are a number of issues in this bill that I find are almost mean-spirited in a way. What is the purpose of removing the oversight of the treasury committee if you have nothing that you wish to hide? The unfortunate thing is now decisions will be questioned because that oversight has been removed. Every decision this Finance Minister makes, if it does not go through the Treasury Board, will be open to skepticism. People will be questioning what the motive was. Why?
Had we used the systems and committees that are in place…. And this government has a lack of wanting to do that, but they’re there for a reason. They’re there, actually, to help protect government. They’re there to protect the best interests of the taxpayer. They’re there to actually protect the Finance Minister, because the motives will be transparent. It will have healthy debate. I find it alarming. I find it disturbing. I find it a pattern.
The Finance Minister has talked an awful lot about loopholes and closing loopholes. Yet when it comes to this, this isn’t just a loophole. This is a blaring, gaping hole. It is. It’s disturbing. I wish the Finance Minister and this government would give it a rethink. I think it would be in their own best interest.
Let me review. We’re going to give…. Ministers and the Premier are going to get $20,000 to $40,000 a year of a pay hike with no oversight. They don’t have to meet goals anymore. We’re just going to do it, as we heard one of the members say, “because we’re in tough times, so we deserve it.” I don’t think that British Columbians think they deserve it. Rather than tightening their belt along with the rest of British Columbians, they’ve now imposed new taxes which are going to hurt low-income families, and they knew it going in.
Champions of the poor, indeed. Indeed. Putting a PST on a used pair of blue jeans, on used clothes, on used pots and pans. That doesn’t sound like you’re championing anything other than your own pocketbook.
Well, you get a raise, and then you help your buddies that have got enough money to be able to go buy an electric car — which is out of many people’s price range — then punish people for the geographic area that they live in because we couldn’t be bothered to consult those in the heating industry as to whether or not this was actually a good idea. Rather than just add an incentive to a heat pump, as I was saying, this now will actually penalize people that have to have natural gas in their homes, by adding a carbon tax and a fuel tax on that.
There’s a lack of thought in this bill. There’s a lack of planning in this bill. It seems as if it was rushed together. It seems as if this government does not wish to be transparent. Their actions speak louder than their words.
It sends a message, all right. It sends a message that ministers and the Premier will help themselves on the backs of low-income and middle-income people. That’s what it says. It’s what’s in the bill. It’s right here. “We’re going to tax you on your used goods on Marketplace that have already been taxed, and we’re going to give ourselves a pay hike, because we think we deserve it.”
There’s not much to cheer about in this bill. It certainly isn’t much to celebrate if you happen to be low income or middle income or if you live in the North or if you’re trying to get a good deal on a used car. Like I said, I thank the minister for helping those in my riding and those that suffered from floods. Other than that, there’s not much to write home about and celebrate for the average British Columbian in this particular measure — all done behind the secrecy of closed doors.
The Finance Minister no longer has to have the oversight of the Treasury Board. That is incredibly disturbing.
S. Furstenau: I rise today to speak to Bill 6, the Budget Implementation Act. This legislation comes around every year. It’s an act to bring into force and adjust provincial legislation in line with the provincial budget.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today does more than fulfil the technical requirement that occurs annually. It continues what I see as a worrying trend that has intensified over the last year, which involves restrictions on government transparency, a concentration of powers in the name of efficiency and an overall lack of respect for democratic institutions.
Before I address those pieces of the Budget Measures Implementation Act, I do want to make one thing clear. It is difficult to address this legislation as wholly good or wholly bad. There are components of it that are necessary and important, especially as we push to reduce our emissions and electrify our province.
I speak in particular of the PST exemption for used zero-emission vehicles, for example. I’m also glad British Columbians will not have to pay PST when they buy a heat pump for their home. British Columbians shouldn’t be paying higher fees to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. These measures are a good step but nowhere near what’s needed in response to the climate emergency.
A government that treated climate change like the emergency it is would pass legislation to ensure that no new houses or buildings in B.C. would be using gas or oil for heating or cooling. It would embark on a historic effort to create 15-minute communities to ensure that everyone has access to reliable, affordable and, dare I say, luxurious public transit.
An appropriate response to the climate emergency would be to end all subsidies to oil and gas and instead ensure that distributed, locally produced renewable energy projects are being built in every region of the province, creating a stable, reliable and affordable energy network for British Columbians and divorcing us from the fossil fuel cartel that profits from climate-disaster-creating industries and contributes to the destabilized geopolitical world that we are living in.
A government that treated climate change like the emergency that it is would not hang its hat on a suite of policies designed to incentivize a slow march of decarbonization. It would orient its entire agenda around food security, water security, protection of biodiversity and a recognition that we need to embed equity into a deep transformation of how we live and work. This government would actually take the advice and guidance of Mariana Mazzucato and stop measuring our economy using GDP, which puts weather disasters, highway destruction and flooding in the net positive because they generate spending.
It would recognize instead that we need a well-being approach to measuring our economy, a health-for-all goal that values planetary health. We need strong social foundations that promote equity. We need to take human health seriously and ensure that “every person can thrive both physically and emotionally” and that people have “the tools to lead lives of dignity and opportunity in healthy communities.” Mariana Mazzucato lays this all out in an extraordinary article she published on International Women’s Day.
A government’s budget tells us a great deal about their priorities. In the times that we are in, these priorities need to be focused well beyond a four-year election cycle.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. If I might, I just want to remind that we’re speaking on the Budget Measures Implementation Act, as opposed to the budget. Just to stay true to the ruling of the Assistant Deputy Speaker, we should try and stay focused on the implementation act. Thank you.
S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am about to get to specific clauses. However, what I’m speaking to is the overall scene of the Budget Implementation Act.
Governments have another duty in addition to treating climate change like the emergency that it is. That is to uphold democracy and transparency. We’re not elected because a public wants governments to have carte blanche to do what they please without oversight. We are all elected as legislators to work together, to tell the truth and to protect the public interest.
On that count, we have seen choices being made in the Budget Implementation Act that continue the trend that we have seen, for example, with the changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Buried between the tax breaks for electric vehicles, there are small technical amendments in this act. In a briefing with ministry staff, I was told that these changes were to improve efficiency.
It’s interesting that the institutions of democracy, in their creation and over their history, have actually put in several ways to decrease efficiency. There are checks and balances on power that are built into democratic institutions to slow down the capacity for a small number of people to make decisions.
Clause 5 of this bill, for example, repeals the requirement for actual surplus or deficit run by a ministry to be made public. Although there might not be a meaningful shift in information caused by this precise clause, the question is: why have it? Efficiency? Communication control?
Clause 8 changes the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the act that requires government to include, in estimates, information about major capital projects — which the public has the right to see and the Legislature has the right to question about — any project that costs over $50 million.
The question is: what is the intention of these changes? Are they changing these requirements so that information doesn’t have to be provided if the government is “planning to announce” a project within 30 days of the budget, so that if government has “plans to have an announcement” replete with fanfare, they conveniently don’t have to make that information public as part of the budget?
Why do this? The only explanation is that it’s a tactic to help control narratives and decide when it is best suited to claim political capital on big announcements. It’s a tactic to reduce the information the public has access to in the budget, a tactic allowing governments to frame capital investments in a way that best suits them on their timelines.
Clause 11 of this bill also concerns me. It allows the Treasury Board to delegate any of its powers or duties, and states that any delegated activity is covered by section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — which, of course, was amended to suit the government in the fall.
Currently the Treasury Board is not a particularly transparent aspect of government decision-making. It’s covered by all sorts of privacy. It’s the arm of government that makes financial decisions, but it is, as least, an arm of government not solely made up of cabinet ministers. Current members of Treasury Board include the Ministers of Finance, Environment, Forests, Children and Family Development, Advanced Education, Land and Water Stewardship, Energy and Mines, Indigenous Affairs, and Education. It includes the Minister of State for Infrastructure and MLAs for Vancouver–False Creek, Maple Ridge–Mission and Vancouver-Hastings.
According to the changes made by this piece of legislation, the Treasury Board can delegate all of their decisions to just the chair and vice-chair, and those decisions would be reviewed later. With these changes, those two individuals can now, if they wish, make significant financial decisions of this province without even the limited oversight of the Treasury Board.
Two people making significant financial decisions for a province of five million people. Two people decide how public money is spent — two people who don’t have to answer to my colleagues or members of the Legislature. Two people whose decisions as representatives of the Treasury Board are not FOIable or publicized. Two people who don’t even have to include their plans for projects over $50 million in the budgetary documents if they plan on announcing it within 30 days of the budget.
I asked experts about this. I wrote to economists, professors, lawyers, the Privacy Commissioner. Among their feedback were quotes such as: “This legislation is confusing,” “We don’t understand why these changes are being made,” “They seem like silly political changes,” and “They seem to concentrate more power in cabinet.” I asked the ministry. I was told that this will improve efficiency.
At committee stage, I will ask the minister: democracies are meant to have checks and balances on power, and how governments spend money is definitely an exertion of power. Democracies are meant to ensure that there is legislative oversight of the executive, that there are mechanisms for effective representation, that we recognize the extraordinary burden we all have to upholding the principles of democracy, the dignity of this institution in our work here.
We are transient occupiers of these seats, but we should all be totally committed to leaving this place better, more transparent, more accountable. We should lament every erosion of this in this Legislature.
Hon. M. Dean: It’s a real honour to rise in the House today to be able to talk about the Budget Measures Implementation Act.
Budget 2022 had some significant elements in it that are going to make a difference to people in British Columbia on a day-to-day basis. I’d like to start by acknowledging the work of staff and all of the efforts that go into the work that the staff of my ministry do in making sure that on a day-to-day basis, children and youth across this province are well-cared-for and well-supported and are connected to their families and to their communities and to their culture as well.
In Budget 2022, our government made a significant multiministry commitment to young people who have been in the care of government and who are transitioning to independence. I’ve heard from many of my colleagues here and friends in community that as parents and as grandparents, we don’t expect young people to just have to leave home and have to find their own way from the age of 19. So through Budget 2022, we’re implementing measures to make sure that young people who are transitioning from government care also receive supports.
I will be talking about the Budget Measures Implementation Act, but I know that part of the role of talking about the implementation act is also recognizing the content of the budget and the influence in outcomes that the budget has as well.
Budget 2022 is supported by the implementation act. There are two sections in that act that I will get to. One section talks about non-tax measures, and then there’s another section that talks about tax measures. It’s just an illustration of the different ways and measures we can put into place that make a difference in lives and the quality of lives.
For example, to talk about youth leaving care, it’s not just financial but putting measures in place, extending emergency measures so that young people are able to stay in their home, so they don’t have the threat of homelessness or having to find their way in the world in a way that is particularly stressful and recognizing that there’s already trauma that has been experienced.
In terms of the Budget Measures Implementation Act, there are a range of housekeeping amendments that are proposed to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. For example, education and health sector organizations will have an exemption to report capital projects over $50 million and to provide for a temporary delay in reporting capital projects over $50 million where a late commitment has been made with a 30-day cutoff before the main estimates are presented.
I’m sure members of this House are very well aware that our government has been investing in capital projects in education and in health. Indeed, I have the Health Minister here in chambers with me, who I’m sure would be able to list the number of hospitals that we’re investing in, that we’re upgrading and that we’re expanding throughout the whole of the province.
We’ve made a lot of announcements and promises, and we are delivering on those. We are modernizing hospitals and health care centres around the province because we know that taking care of British Columbians is absolutely vital. We’ve seen that not only through this pandemic, but since 2017, our government has been investing in the health care sector and in that infrastructure and in the education sector as well.
We’re talking about the capital plan and capital program of the Education Ministry. Our government has been investing in a range of schools and in seismic upgrades. I live in a community that’s probably the fastest-growing community — not in Canada, but in B.C. We’ve had a number of new schools. In fact, the high school in my community, Royal Bay, has had an extension and is now the largest high school on Vancouver Island. We’ve also been investing, for example, in playgrounds.
It’s really important that we are able to make amendments to the capital plan, through this act, in order to support our capital investments and programming that’s improving the quality of education for children and young people across British Columbia.
There are other amendments as well. Part 2 of the bill, for example, really reflects our commitment to addressing the climate crisis and supports our CleanBC plan, as well. We’ve made various amendments to tax credits and the provincial sales tax as well. I’ll give you a couple of examples, hon. Speaker. The bill authorizes regulations to be made in order to provide two items of PST relief. So a provincial sales tax exemption for used zero-emission vehicles and for heat pumps.
I’ve heard from a lot of people in my community. They’re very interested in what they can do as individuals to address the climate crisis. What people are able to do is to make some alterations, renovations, modernizations of their homes, for example. Installing a heat pump is one of those areas that I know people are very interested in as well.
The act will remove the PST from all electric heat pumps and will also increase the PST on fossil-fuel-heating equipment. These revenues would offset the cost of new incentives to make heat pumps more affordable for homeowners in rural and northern British Columbia. So we’re thinking about the situation and the homes of people across the whole of the province.
I know, talking to people in my community, that they see that providing incentives, such as altering the provincial sales tax, are ways that people tell us they want government to provide those more affordable means for people to be able to address their own energy consumption and make their own contribution to reducing emissions.
The motor fuel tax is also amended to authorize regulations expanding an existing exemption for hydrogen, to include hydrogen fuel used in internal combustion engine vehicles.
Hon. Speaker, what you’re seeing here is a range of measures in this act that are supporting the CleanBC plan, and the intention, of course, of the CleanBC plan is to reduce emissions. We know that British Columbians are absolutely committed to doing their part for the environment. They expect us, as government, to provide ways to support them and also to support businesses and to support different sectors and industries to bring down their emissions and to be able to make that contribution.
The School Act is amended to remove the industrial property tax credit on major industry costs for 2023.
The bill also amends the Tobacco Tax Act to remove the PST exemption for tobacco. We know how harmful smoking is, especially the younger that you start. We need to find different measures and different ways of protecting people from such an addictive substance that’s so harmful and creates ill health for so many people. We have seen that across so many different societies.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
We have to be very careful. We can’t just implement one measure and expect that is necessarily going to create the change that we would expect. There will be unintended consequences, so we have to implement different measures and evaluate them. So we’re implementing this measure through this act of amending the Tobacco Tax Act.
The speculation and vacancy tax is amended to temporarily expand the exemption for hazardous or damaged residential property to apply to properties that were damaged by the floods in late 2021 and to make the exemption for strata accommodation properties permanent.
There’s a reminder there that our province has experienced so many challenges over the past year, not just climate-related. But we have had the heat dome, wildfires, the floods, as well as the retraumatizing findings at so-called residential schools. By taking measures in this act, it’s a further illustration of our approach as a government to support British Columbians across the province, recognizing all the challenges not only of two health emergencies as well….
Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.
Hon. M. Dean: Noting the time, I move adjournment of the debate.
Hon. M. Dean moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MENTAL HEALTH AND
ADDICTIONS
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Bailey in the chair.
The committee met at 11:14 a.m.
On Vote 39: ministry operations, $24,602,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Welcome, to my critic and to the members of the committee.
I am grateful to be on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I’m also honoured to be elected on Snuneymuxw land.
I’m also honoured to serve as British Columbia’s second-ever Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I’m very fortunate to work alongside many dedicated, passionate people who are actively building a comprehensive system of mental health and addictions care to serve British Columbians throughout the province.
Every day our ministry’s work is informed by the life-saving work of practitioners and peers on the front line of the toxic drug and mental health crisis. I’m eternally grateful for their service.
One of the very dedicated groups of professional people is our ministry staff. I’d like to introduce to the committee the ministry staff in attendance today — my deputy minister, Christine Massey; assistant deputy minister Darryl Sturtevant, sitting behind me; executive director Lori MacKenzie; along with the ministry’s financial lead, Tracee Schmidt, to my left. There are others on the phone. I’m grateful for their support today.
The past few years have been extraordinarily difficult for so many British Columbians. Not only has COVID-19 put a strain on people in unexpected and challenging ways, but on top of that, we’ve seen an unprecedented number of lives lost to the toxic drug crisis. Our government is dealing with simultaneous public health emergencies, each having a terribly compounding effect on each other.
Despite these challenges, progress is being made on multiple fronts. I’m proud of the work our government has achieved so far to build a comprehensive system of mental health and addictions care where there was not one in place in 2017. It began with Pathway to Hope, built on the advice of British Columbians from all parts of the province and introduced by my friend and predecessor, Judy Darcy, the first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for British Columbia — the first in Canada.
That was 2019. We’ve continued to expand on that system from the ground up. In March 2020, B.C. became the first province in Canada to offer prescribed safer supply, a critical step in preventing overdoses from toxic drugs.
Since we introduced risk mitigation guidance, more than 12,000 people have been helped by this groundbreaking response. Critical medication has been prescribed by more than 3,000 clinicians, with the number of prescribers increasing every month.
In addition, more than 24,000 people each month receive medication-assisted treatment, with 1,700 clinicians prescribing medication for opioid use disorder. The second phase of prescribed safer supply is now being implemented in health authorities and federally funded programs. But that is not all we’re doing.
Our province is also leading the way on decriminalization. Last year British Columbia was the first province in Canada to apply to the federal government for an exemption to remove criminal penalties for people who are in possession of small amounts of illicit substances. Through decriminalization, we can reduce the fear and stigma that keep people silent about their drug use, that force them into using drugs alone — which often, in this terrible time, means dying alone — and remove a barrier to them accessing the help they need and deserve, because substance use and addictions is a public health issue and not a criminal one.
While we look forward to Health Canada’s response to our decriminalization application, we continue to work with our partners in Ottawa on this submission, and I know the federal government understands the urgency. We hope to hear an answer soon.
Safer supply and decriminalization are just some of the tools in our toolkit in the fight against toxic drugs. We know there is much more to do.
That’s why, in Budget 2021, our government made a historic $500 million investment in mental health and addictions support across the spectrum of treatment and recovery, including $97 million for integrated mental health and substance use care for children, youth and young adults; $75 million to improve access and quality of mental health services; $132 million to make treatment and recovery services more accessible, including withdrawal management and wraparound treatment services and other supports; $45 million to accelerate responses to the overdose emergency; $22.6 million to expand safe supply; and $152 million to expand access to treatment services for mental health and addictions.
In Budget 2022, we are continuing that investment, with $164 million over the next three years to open at least 20 new complex care housing services to serve up to 500 people across the province.
That’s just to start. Our government will continue to invest in broader services and supports for people with mental health and substance use challenges over the months and years to come.
British Columbians are emerging from an unprecedented time. Never has there been more need to prioritize mental health and substance use supports. That’s exactly what we’re doing. Step by step, we are transforming the mental health and addictions care system in British Columbia so that British Columbians can access the mental health and substance use supports they need and deserve.
Since I became minister, never have so many people worked so hard and stood up so many supports. Clearly, these changes cannot happen fast enough. We’re swimming against a rising tide of need, but we need to keep going, keep working together. We will not stop working until we build a comprehensive system of care that works for all British Columbians.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and welcome to your team.
Member for Surrey–White Rock, do you have opening remarks?
T. Halford: Madam Chair, I want to thank the minister, and I want to thank the minister’s staff as we are about to embark on this journey.
I will say this. I think that there is no file that is probably more important than the one that we’re about to discuss right now, given the current state and the fact that we are losing seven British Columbians a day.
I look forward to the conversation. I assume that it will be…. I know it will be respectful, but I’m also hoping that the dialogue for both is good, in that when a question is asked, we get an appropriate answer. I will do my best to do the same.
The Chair: I invite the member to begin his questions.
T. Halford: In regard to the death review panel that we saw yesterday, can the minister confirm that this ministry and the government can meet all the recommendations and the timelines laid out by the coroner’s report yesterday?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Our government has been acting urgently to respond to the toxic drug crisis since we were elected in 2017. The report correctly recognizes how important a continuum of care is to that — to solve the overdose crisis. Building a system of care does not happen in 30, 60, 90 days. I wish that it were so. This is a highly complex crisis that has evolved and changed over the last five years, and our response has evolved also.
The recommendations confirm that the work we have done and are doing is vital to ending the public health emergency. That’s why we’re acting to decriminalize people who use drugs. That’s why we’re the first province to bring forward a prescribed safe supply. That’s why we have amended that program twice now and are in the process of implementing it right now through every health authority. That’s why we’ve made historic investments to build a continuum of care in the province, where there wasn’t one before. That’s why we’re acting urgently, within our own provincial jurisdiction, to meet the rising tide of need.
We are committed to do more. We will consider all actions we can take as a province to end the crisis. Our ministry is carefully reviewing the recommendations and will be responding to the coroner directly once that review is complete.
T. Halford: I draw the minister’s attention to recommendation No. 2: “By May 9, 2022, the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions and the Ministry of Health, in collaboration with the CEOs of the regional health authorities, the Provincial Health Services Authority and the First Nations Health Authority will develop a 30/60/90-day action plan.”
Is the minister able to confirm today that that recommendation is not achievable?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The mandate letters of the health authorities — written both by myself and Minister Dix, the Minister of Health — outline the health authorities’ responsibilities in relation to overdose response. My deputy meets regularly with the CEOs and her counterparts, including yesterday. I met with the board chairs, all together, at the end of February. I don’t have a precise date; it was a Friday. I’m meeting with them directly.
In particular — notwithstanding that their unprecedented expansion of programs and services to prevent overdoses and respond to them has been consuming them through the course of the pandemic — they’ve signalled that pivoting away from a singular, deep focus on COVID, they want to reactivate their plans and engage in a different way. That will certainly change the conversation. My staff meets with their counterparts, collectively, every month. Our ministry’s overdose emergency response centre meets with the operational staff every month and has daily conversations. This is long-standing, ongoing and embedded in all of our mandate instructions.
T. Halford: I think the recommendation centres around not building a system but developing a plan.
Is the answer from the minister that she cannot meet that recommendation, recommendation 2, that was put forward yesterday? Can the minister meet that deadline in that target that was put forward yesterday?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The plan on overdose emergency response, although initially implemented in 2017, has continued to evolve as the toxic drug crisis has evolved. It’s embedded in our overdose emergency response centre’s plan. It’s embedded in the mandate letters given to the health authorities. It continues to evolve, and we continue to work with the health authorities.
We’ll continue to take all advice from people on the front line, from the practitioners who are working very hard to save lives. The health authorities, as our service deliverers, are a key partner in that. That’s why — as my previous answer indicated — we work with them all the time in regular meetings, and we’ll continue to.
T. Halford: In the question that I asked, I think the minister, in question period, was a little bit more direct on the specific 30, 60, 90 days. So I will use that as the basis. My understanding is that that recommendation cannot be met. I think that’s fair, based on the minister’s answer in the House, in question period.
I will go to recommendation No. 3, which is: “By April 11, 2022, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and the CEOs of the regional health authorities, the Provincial Health Services Authority and the First Nations Health Authority will review the 2017 illicit drug toxicity death review panel recommendation 1, ‘Ensure accountability for the substance use system of care.’”
The recommendations go on. I’m sure the minister is familiar with recommendation No. 3. The target date is April 11, 2022. Can the minister meet that date?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Since the release of the 2017 illicit drug toxicity death review panel report, my ministry and the Minister of Health have worked to address each aspect of the recommendation.
First, on leadership through the overdose emergency response centre that my ministry has, new leadership has been established at multiple levels to escalate the response to the emergency.
In relation to the recommendations on provincial regulations, amendments to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act have been brought into force, enhancing provincial oversight powers. A new regulation has been implemented for registered supportive recovery residences, introducing new regulatory requirements in areas such as staff training and competencies, service planning, organizational policy requirements and transition planning.
In relation to the provincial registry of licensed and regulated programs, in addition to the new regulatory requirements for assisted-living residences, changes to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act that came into force in September 2018 have added a requirement for the assisted-living registrar to post information about unlawfully operating residences as well as summary information about substantiated complaints against supportive recovery residences.
A registry of registered supportive recovery services, along with this new information, is now available online to help people make better, more informed choices about the types of recovery supported services, because there’s a great variety in the types of services offered. There is a website through Ministry of Health that is titled Assisted Living Residences. In addition, every health authority maintains a list of licensed programs and a list of all registered and licensed services across the province. That is a public list, dated March 2021, on the website of the B.C. Centre on Substance Use.
Then finally, pursuing the recommendation on people with lived and living experience, we regularly engage to inform all of our work underway. Some examples include peer roles embedded within the overdose emergency response centre; community action teams, which we fund across the province; funding provided to establish peer coordinators and supports in regional health authorities and the B.C. Centre for Disease Control; ongoing engagement with and funding support provided to the PPN network; and also, last summer, the establishment of — the first in Canada, we believe — standards of practice and a new curriculum for peer workers. That was led by peers. It’s going to be a really important part of our implementation of complex-care housing and other health care services across every health authority.
T. Halford: For clarification, the minister’s answer…. Was that addressing recommendation No. 3? Okay. So is the minister saying that recommendation 3 has been met?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m speaking to the budget, the service plan and the work already conducted, because that is within scope of the budget estimates process.
T. Halford: The work and the scope and the recommendations are fairly targeted at the Ministry of Mental Health, which I imagine is under the scope of the minister and the scope of the budget and the estimates. So when we’re looking at recommendation No. 3 and a specific target date, the question to the minister is: can the minister meet the target date that was set forward yesterday?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ve already answered that question — that that analysis is underway. So I’m here to speak to our budget and to the programs that we have in place, the programs we’ve completed, our service plan and Pathway to Hope.
T. Halford: Forgive me. I’m new to this job. I didn’t hear an answer from the minister. I thought the question was fairly direct.
The recommendation is fairly direct. The date is fairly definitive — and the question. What I lined out when I made my opening remarks was that I was hopeful that we could have a dialogue with the minister that would actually give definitive answers when a question is asked.
I asked a question on a specific date that is contained under the mandate of the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions — whether or not that date was achievable. If it’s uncomfortable for the minister to answer, or she doesn’t have the answer, that is fair. What I’m asking is: can recommendation No. 3 — with the date of April 11, 2022 — be met?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I will repeat again that I’ve answered the member’s question. That analysis is underway, and I welcome any of his questions about the budget, the service plan and the Pathway to Hope, which are all the focus of the budget estimates process.
T. Halford: Does the minister have the budget and the authority to meet the target of April 11, 2022, on recommendation No. 3? The question is: in the minister’s current budget, does she have the proper resources to meet that recommendation? Can she fulfil it?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: That analysis is underway.
The Chair: Member, I’ll just remind you that we don’t want to get bogged down in the process. So I’ll ask you if you could bring us a fresh question. Thank you.
T. Halford: Can the Chair define for me what “bogged down in the process” means?
The Chair: I’m just referring to the question having been asked similarly three times now. So I’d like to provide a prompt to the member that we consider a new question.
T. Halford: With all due respect to the Chair, if I get an answer, I’ll move on to another question.
What I’ll say is this. The minister did indicate…. The minister did indicate, in previous media remarks yesterday, that she had spoken with the coroner. Did the minister indicate that the dates put forward by the coroner were not achievable?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Madam Chair, I will again say that I’m very open to any questions that the member has on the budget, on our service plan or on the programs that my ministry has implemented.
T. Halford: Does the minister have the budget…? Does the minister have the staff required to meet the recommendations, laid out by the death review panel, that we saw yesterday?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Asked and answered.
T. Halford: Sorry, then I must be a little bit confused. Can the minister repeat the answer? I didn’t…. Maybe I missed it with the minister’s remarks. Can the minister repeat the answer on the question I just asked? I must have missed it.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll repeat that the analysis of the member’s question is underway.
T. Halford: Can the minister define…? The fact is that she has indicated that she was briefed on the report by the coroner, that this report is primarily under the scope of the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, which has staff and which has a budget — which this minister has indicated many times, publicly and in the House — to deal with the matters that have been put forward yesterday.
I’m asking, with respect, does the minister have the budget necessary to meet the recommendations put forward? Does the minister have…? When we’re talking about recommendation No. 3, and she is saying work is underway…. April 11 is a few weeks away. Can the minister indicate the timelines for that work and when we can expect to actually see an indication from the minister whether or not recommendation 3 is achievable?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The analysis of the report that was made public yesterday is underway. I welcome the member’s questions to anything about service delivery, my ministry’s budget, Pathway to Hope and the service plan that we have filed, which is the focus of this budget review process.
The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion, please.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.