Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 2, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 280
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2023
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Statements
JANE SHIN AND FAMILY
K. Chen: Today I would like to give my best wishes and congratulations to an outstanding woman leader, my predecessor for Burnaby-Lougheed and the first and only Korean Canadian elected to this Legislature, Jane Shin.
I had the honour of joining her newborn child’s 100th day celebration last week. It was so incredible to see Jane, her partner, Steven Su, and their baby boy, River Lee Su, together with so much love and blessings from their family and friends.
River is such a handsome and healthy baby boy, who I’m sure will benefit from the ChildCareBC plan. I believe he will grow up being so proud of his mom, who has paved the way for so many women of colour, like me, to join politics and make positive changes, like the $10-a-day child care, possible.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank Jane for giving me her trust to run for this seat six years ago. Her trust has changed my life, and I’m so grateful to have had the opportunity to represent Burnaby-Lougheed in the Legislature.
So thank you, and congratulations, Jane, Steven and River. All the best wishes to your beautiful family.
Introductions by Members
T. Stone: I wanted to take this opportunity in introductions to formally welcome the interns who have agreed to work with our caucus for the balance of this spring session. We’ve gotten to know them over the last few weeks. They’re all very keen, well qualified, eager to dive right in. In fact, that’s exactly what they’ve done.
I will take this opportunity to welcome to our communications team Sarah Ash and Kevin Franceschini, and to our research team, Kaitlyn Lu, Tristen McCartney and Parnian Taheri.
I’d ask that the House please make these interns feel very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 11 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2023.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Election Amendment Act. This bill implements recommendations for legislative change to the Election Act from the Chief Electoral Officer’s May 2020 report to the Legislative Assembly, Digital Communications, Disinformation and Democracy, and from the May 2022 report on recommendations for legislative change.
The key amendments include restrictions on making specified types of false statements and misrepresentations in relation to an election, requiring digital platforms that publish election advertising to remove non-compliant advertising within a specific time frame and improving accessibility and efficiency of the vote-by-mail process.
These amendments will ensure that British Columbians can continue to have confidence in our election process by enhancing the accessibility and efficiency of provincial elections while preserving the high degree of integrity and transparency.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 11, Election Amendment Act, 2023, 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)
AVALANCHE AT PANORAMA
MOUNTAIN IN COLUMBIA
VALLEY
D. Clovechok: I rise solemnly today after a heartbreaking tragedy in my riding yesterday. An avalanche came down about 30 kilometres southwest of Invermere, killing three skiers and injuring four others who were skiing in a group of ten, all from out of Canada.
Four were injured, including the guide. They were part of international visitors skiing at Panorama Mountain resort. Panorama ski patrol and local search and rescue crews carried out the effort to locate and free the victims and worked with B.C. emergency services to get the injured to hospital.
A dozen people have died in avalanches in our province this year, making it one of the worst seasons in decades. I want to thank Avalanche Canada for all the work that they do and the efforts that they make to try to prevent these things.
When these tragedies occur, it shakes the entire community. That’s the Columbia Valley, which includes Canal Flats, of course, Invermere, all the way up to Radium. They’re tight knit. I know right now there’s deep sadness. Our hearts go out to the victims and their loved ones and those who survived the frightening event and incident. We wish them a quick recovery.
I want to thank the heli-skiing company. They are just consummate professionals. The general manager worked for me at Princess Cruises. He’s just an amazing young man.
SAR, the Panorama ski resort, the RCMP and the B.C. Ambulance Service all did a phenomenal job yesterday. I wish them all the very best today. I wish I could be there.
I also want to recognize the director of area F, the regional district of East Kootenay, for her leadership, who happens to be my wife, Susan, and the mayor of Invermere.
Today actually marks Search and Rescue Volunteer Memorial Day. It happens on March 2 every year to remember those rescuers who lost their lives in the line of duty and to recognize the volunteers who continue to serve.
I’ll note that just last month we lost a search and rescue volunteer to an avalanche. She was killed alongside another skier in the Chilcotin region, not on the job but enjoying the back country that she loved. It was her teammates with Cariboo Search and Rescue that had to carry her out on the recovery mission.
Even the most experienced back-country skier can encounter trouble. It’s vital that people check the warnings, carry the right gear and be mindful of the dangers that come out there.
I’d ask this House to send their prayers to these people today.
MENTORSHIP AND
MESSAGE OF
APPRECIATION
K. Chen: Today I would like to talk about the importance of mentorship. I find one of the most rewarding parts about being an MLA or being in a political movement is the amount of things we can learn every single day — the stories we hear, the places we go and the people we meet and sometimes become close with for life. If you’re lucky, like me, to have a mentor in this world who believes in you and supports you unconditionally, your life could be changed forever, like mine.
Today I want to thank a mentor, a chosen family and someone I had the fortune to have met when I first joined the NDP in my early twenties. I’d just graduated from university and was a foreign worker here on my own. This person believed in me and gave me the opportunity to work with him and learn from him. He has taught me so much with the work he’s done for our community, and he has taught me to be a good MLA with his kindness and compassion.
Mentorship can be a voice to listen to, a brain to pick or a push for us to go towards the right direction. That’s exactly what this person has done for me and many others. He trusted me when I didn’t even trust myself. He’s always there to listen, to give me his honest opinion and his trust. He has supported me fully, even when I don’t follow his advice. He knows I’m the rebellious daughter he cannot get rid of.
I’m so grateful for his unconditional mentorship and support during the past 17 years. I hope he knows that no matter where I go in life, he’s like a father to me forever, and he’s stuck with this rebellious daughter for life.
Thank you. I love you and respect you so much. I also want to wish you a very happy birthday, with many amazing years to come, with all the happiness, good health and great looking hair too.
All the best wishes to the hon. Speaker of the Legislature.
WILDLIFE
T. Shypitka: I have two favourite days in the Legislature each year, one being Mining Day and the second one being Wildlife Day, which happens to be tomorrow.
Lots of things we can celebrate about wildlife and the diversity in this province. Sadly, we’re seeing a rapid decline in our wildlife populations in every corner of the province.
There are lots of factors to this. There’s disease — Movi virus for the sheep and goat populations, chronic wasting disease for our ungulate populations — and also land use, industry, habitat loss, climate change and predation, which is a major contributor and needs to be seriously managed.
We need science-based decision-making and up-to-date data collection. We need local First Nation and local stakeholder input on how we manage our populations. We need legislation that puts wildlife first. That is why last year I brought forward a private member’s bill that was to introduce an independent funding model to give revenue to manage this effort that we all need to take to restore our habitat and wildlife populations.
We’ve seen some great private members’ bills as well. The member of the Green Party just reintroduced a wildlife amendment act to restore bear denning in trees and stumps and to protect those habitats that we most desperately need to retain our wildlife populations.
For today, I just want to celebrate Wildlife Day, respect and celebrate the diversity of our province and our wildlife populations and make tomorrow a great day for all wildlife in British Columbia.
FESTIVAL OF HOLI
A. Singh: Next Wednesday, March 8, as well as commemorating International Women’s Day, over one billion people the world over, mainly in India but also across the diaspora, including British Columbia, will celebrate the Hindu festival of Holi. Culturally, the festival has its roots in the celebration of the eternal and divine Lord Krishna and Radha, beloved through….
Mirabai, a devotee of Lord Krishna, wrote some prolific poetry. I’ll read some.
Unbreakable, O Lord,
Is the love
That binds me to
you.
Like a diamond,
It breaks the hammer that strikes
it.
My heart goes into you
As the polish goes into the
gold.
As the lotus lives in its water,
I live in you.
Like
the bird
That gazes all night
At the passing moon,
I have
lost myself dwelling in you.
O my beloved, return.
The day also signifies the triumph of good over evil. It commemorates the victory of the god Vishnu as Narasimha Narayana over Hiranyakashipu.
Holi is a time to celebrate renewal as winter gives way to spring and the earth comes to life with a multitude of colours. It lasts for a night and a day, starting on the evening of the Purnima, the full moon, and falling in the Hindu calendar month of Phalguna, usually around mid March. The first evening is also known as Holika Dahan, or Chhoti Holi, and the following day is Holi.
Holi celebrations are also known as the festival of colours. I’m sure you’ve all seen those vivid images. On the day of Holi, people celebrate by decorating, throwing coloured powder on each other, drenching each other with colours. Water guns and water-filled balloons are often used to play and colour each other, with anyone and any place being considered fair game. Devotees travel from place to place, singing and dancing.
In Richmond, Holi will be celebrated at the Vedic Cultural Society of B.C. on No. 5 Road, on the Highway to Heaven.
I encourage my constituents and all of you to reach out to the society and participate in the celebrations.
NEWMAN FARM AND
FARMLANDS TRUST
SOCIETY
A. Olsen: Last fall I visited Newman Farm in Central Saanich, where I met with Don and Natasha Caverley and farm manager Bert James to get a tour.
The land was donated to the district by the Newman family. When I was on council in Central Saanich, we partnered with the Farmlands Trust to farm it. There was a condition. They couldn’t compete with commercial farms. What they created from that was amazing.
The Farmlands Trust Society is a recognized model for sustainable farming and food redistribution in the greater Victoria region utilizing national, award-winning, certified pollinator-friendly farm practices. From 2013 to the present, the Farmlands Trust Society has led the field to plate initiative, where they grow, harvest and freely donate fresh, local produce to vulnerable populations. The primary recipient of the FLT Society’s field to plate initiative is Our Place Society.
FLT produces apples, herbs, squash, beets, cabbage, carrots, cucumbers, garlic, kale, leeks, lettuce, onions, pears and turnips. Last year the Farmlands Trust produced and donated 12,912 pounds, $75,000 worth, of food. From 2014, the initiative has delivered 102,685 pounds, $315,000 worth, of fresh, local food.
Like many not-for-profits, volunteers are the backbone of the FLT, and today I’d like to recognize Ms. Victoria Lord. She’s an 86-year-old resident from Sidney who has been diligently volunteering her time and her gardening skills at Newman Farm for the past several years. She epitomizes in her actions the importance of giving back to the community at a local and regional level.
My thanks and sincere appreciation to the Farmlands Trust Society patron, founder, board of directors: Bert James, Victoria Lord, Natasha and Don Caverley, and all the other valuable volunteers and team members who continue to make positive contributions as a charity helping charity, linking food production to aid in relieving poverty and mitigating food insecurity.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
M. Babchuk: After going through a divorce, Sean found himself with no other choice than to move himself and his sons in with his parents. While he was grateful for the temporary living situation and made it work, it was cramped and not sustainable. At the same time, he was dealing with the pressures of being a new single parent and just trying to set an example for his children.
Feeling desperate, Sean sought help. “I don’t even remember what I typed into the computer,” he said. Something to do with “housing” and “help me.” And the Habitat for Humanity website came up.
He honestly didn’t believe that this type of program existed in this world. A hand up, not a handout, is exactly what Sean was looking for, and the Habitat program, which involves 500 hours of volunteer work, helped him rebuild his confidence. He formed strong bonds with the Habitat staff, volunteers and fellow homeowners and particularly enjoyed being on the build site.
Sean described the Habitat program as a snowball of positivity that got bigger and bigger with each step that he went down his path. He said: “It’s been my belief, and now it’s confirmed, that programs and groups of people like this are really what hold this world together.”
Sean completed his 500 hours of volunteerism and moved into his Habitat home with his sons in December of 2022, but he isn’t finished. He wants to give back to the community. “Now that I’ve gotten myself out of this jam, I intend to take a page out of the Habitat book and start helping more people who need it. It’s amazing the confidence you can pass on just by doing something that was handed to you.”
I couldn’t be more proud, as Sean is my son, and he has worked so hard to better his life and the lives of my grandchildren Owen and Jason.
Also, I am so grateful to be acquainted with an organization that provides entry-level, affordable family home ownership through a collaborative non-profit model, and I’m honoured to now be part of the Habitat for Humanity family that not only provides housing but also lifelong skills and a sense of community to the people that it serves.
Oral Questions
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM AND
ROLE OF BUSINESSES
IN DRUG SUPPLY
K. Falcon: Adastra Holdings is a cannabis company that supplies products to 1,400 retailers. Last week the Langley-based company issued a press release announcing its plans to possess, produce, sell and distribute cocaine in British Columbia.
The release describes Adastra as poised to be a leader in drug development for emerging sectors and at the forefront of the NDP’s decriminalization program. The statement further reveals that Adastra intends to “evaluate how the commercialization of cocaine fits within the company’s business model.”
To the Premier, what on earth is going on here?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. As the member knows, both sides of the House have supported decriminalization….
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You have. You can change your position. If you’re changing your….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, let’s not have….
Hon. M. Farnworth: If you’re changing your position, then I think it would be an important thing to announce.
But we have decriminalization now in the province for small amounts of drugs. That has been put in place by working with the federal government, by working with police and health officials in terms of how to do that to deal with the toxic opioid crisis that we have been facing in this province.
What the member has been talking about…. I would want to ensure that, first off, it has to be done under the guidance of Health Canada. There are Criminal Code rules around drugs and the amounts that are there.
I suspect, hon. Member, that what you’re talking about is probably something that has been put in place under the aegis of Health Canada.
K. Falcon: Let’s be really clear. The NDP’s plunge headlong into decriminalization without the proper guardrails that even the federal government insisted should be in place is absolutely not something that we’re going to support on this side of the House.
That answer explains exactly the problem that we have. The NDP’s sole focus, as I’ve said repeatedly, is on the public supply of addictive drugs, ignoring the important emphasis that should be on actually helping people get off of their addictions and be proper, functioning members of society again.
Let me read what Adastra Holdings stated in their press release. “This news release…includes statements regarding…the intention to evaluate how the commercialization of cocaine fits within the company’s business model.”
Now, since the NDP decriminalized hard drugs like cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine, this company’s stock price has doubled. But let’s be really clear here. Cocaine isn’t prescribed. It isn’t safe, and this is wrong. Commercializing cocaine as a business opportunity amounts to legalizing cocaine trafficking — full stop.
Why has this Premier allowed for the commercialization of cocaine?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. What I can assure the member is that the decriminalization process that’s taken place in this province is done in concert with the federal government on the guidelines that have been put in place by Health Canada. That’s the only way that decriminalization will work in….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The minister will continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member asked a serious question. I’m trying to give him a serious answer, which is, as I’ve said, where decriminalization is in the province of British Columbia and the rules and guidelines that have been put in place by the federal government for this process to work.
What I can tell you is that no, we would absolutely not be supporting the development and the wholesale distribution and legalization of cocaine in the province of British Columbia.
What we have is a….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. M. Farnworth: What we have is a policy in place that has been developed through a considerable amount of work with Health Canada, with addiction specialists, with health professionals and with chiefs of police to ensure that we can have safer supply for those who are addicted. This is not and never has been about legalizing cocaine or encouraging it for commercial distribution, despite whatever the member is reading from his press release.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.
E. Sturko: Although the commercialization of cocaine typically brings to mind cartels, it’s corporations cashing in under the current NDP government. Drug trafficking is illegal….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.
Members, order. Members, enough.
Please, let’s hear the question.
E. Sturko: I heard someone — I’m not sure who — saying that I’m fearmongering. But people should be afraid, because trafficking cocaine will cause significant harm in the province of British Columbia.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.
E. Sturko: Drug trafficking is illegal, but a retail store has already opened in Vancouver, run by Dana Larsen, and they’re doing it in plain sight. Larsen is also supporting another private proposal to open a brick-and-mortar store to sell heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. Commercialization of cocaine poses a significant threat to health and safety, all being done right now under the guise of compassion.
My question to the Premier is, why is he condoning and enabling the commercialization of cocaine in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It’s just nonsense that we are enabling….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the things that we have learned….
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Really?
Interjections.
[Mr. Speaker rose.]
Mr. Speaker: Members, please. Shhh.
I asked the other side, when the question was being asked, to show courtesy to listen to the question. I expect the same thing….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please don’t, member for Skeena. I know what’s going on here, okay?
Let’s listen to the answer. The minister will continue.
[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are two points to the member’s question I want to make clear. First off, in regard to the stores in Vancouver, we didn’t issue them a business licence. They shouldn’t have a business licence. The city of Vancouver should revoke that business licence. They should be shut down. I have made that clear on a number of points. The police can enforce that…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …because what they’re doing is illegal. The police can enforce them, and the police can shut that down.
They also have a business licence, a business licence granted by the city of Vancouver, and it….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, what…?
Really?
Hon. M. Farnworth: You want it shut down. It can be shut down by the police. In pulling the business licence, it could be shut down today.
Second point, what I’ve learned from the Liberals is that when it comes to their press releases, they’re often very selective. I’d like to go back to exactly what is taking place with this issue that they raised. It is a cannabis company. They have received approval from Health Canada to possess 250 grams to do testing in terms of this substance. The licence is issued by Health Canada. It is not done with consultation with the province.
I can tell you this. Cocaine is an illegal substance. It continues to be an illegal substance. It is regulated by Health Canada. That is what we support. We do not support the legalization of cocaine for commercial distribution.
Mr. Speaker: Surrey South, supplemental.
E. Sturko: I’d point out that also in the press release, it says that not only can they possess 250 milligrams of cocaine, but they can also now import coca leaves and manufacture cocaine for the future distribution of cocaine in British Columbia.
The commercialization of cocaine and other illegal drugs isn’t an act of compassion. It’s legalized drug trafficking, which is going to pose a significant threat to health and safety in B.C. We should be telling people, especially children and youth, that drugs are harmful, addictive and deadly and that the effects of illicit drugs — such as crystal meth, fentanyl, heroin and cocaine — are harmful.
This government is ignoring the federal letter of requirements and pressing forward with decriminalization with no thought to consequences, no protections, no enforcement and no plan for public safety. This is doomed to fail badly.
My question. Why has the Premier encouraged, supported and allowed the commercialization of cocaine?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That is just nonsense. We do not support the commercialization of cocaine in British Columbia or in the country. If the federal government has granted a licence, then they should be taking it up with the federal government. They’re the ones who made that licence.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: What I also want to let the House know is that when she says that we are not concerned about trafficking, we most certainly are. That’s why our budget has $462 million this year for public safety. That’s why we announced the largest investment in policing, in terms of the RCMP in this province, of $230 million. That’s why there’s more than $83 million for special teams to…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …particularly go after repeat violent offenders.
It’s also why we have made dealing with drug traffickers, and with those who profit, a priority for our government. Whether it’s bringing in the witness protection program, to be able to build strong cases to bust criminal gangs that traffic…. We take it seriously, our budget takes it seriously, and it’s unfortunate that that side of the House doesn’t realize it.
Mr. Speaker: It’s really interesting to see today, when a question is being asked, if there’s any amount of heckling from the government side, the opposition side is very quick to point it out, to stop it. When the answer is provided, the heckling happens; they just ignore that.
Please, let’s apply the same rule to both sides. Heckling is okay, but at least have the courtesy to listen to each other. Thank you.
STANDARDS OF CARE FOR ADDICTION
TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
SERVICES
A. Olsen: For weeks, we’ve been hearing the government and opposition fighting about addiction treatment beds — treatment we desperately need, to support recovery for British Columbians. Basically, the debate has been framed around who’s worse at letting people die, attempting to score political points off the trauma of British Columbians. It’s theatre. Neither side of this House is taking accountability for their failure to regulate the treatment industry.
Private industries are profiting from the drug poisoning crisis. The industry has a vested interest in having clients, and that means more harm. Both sides offer billions but without setting industry standards, making vulnerable people more vulnerable to potential predators. Addictions treatment and recovery options are greatly needed. However, in British Columbia, there is no standard of care.
Additionally, this government doesn’t even collect data on the number of beds, who’s in them and how many are needed. One would think that the government would start by understanding the scope of the problem and then ensuring that the options they’re creating are safe.
My question is to the Premier. When will he set standards for the treatment industry in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, thank you to the member for his question. As the member will know, previously, under the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, Judy Darcy, the government re-regulated an area that had been deregulated, which is recovery houses in B.C. It was a significant action that reflected exactly what he’s talking about in the community.
We have, this week, before the House, a budget that invests unprecedented amounts in treatment and that adds treatment beds in our province, publicly funded treatment beds, supporting groups in the community, as well, such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, that do just that. We have moved on these questions.
On the issue of data, you’ll see, in the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions service plan, new measurements of data to do exactly what the member is asking. In other words, we have a serious, thoughtful and, frankly, action-oriented response to what is a public health emergency that affects everybody.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
A. Olsen: I appreciate the response from the Minister of Health. We have seen and heard from the coroner, suggesting that anyone can put up a sign and call themselves a treatment centre.
In the coming weeks, we will definitely be asking further questions with respect to the response that the minster gave in budget estimates and beyond.
Yesterday the Finance Minister was quick to quote Jonny Morris from the Canadian Mental Health Association in B.C., but only the good parts. I agree with Jonny that the $1 billion investment in mental health and addictions care is a remarkable investment, but the Finance Minister failed to mention that Jonny also raised concerns about the lack of funding for mental illnesses beyond substance use disorder. It appears only $61 million is going to support those illnesses in Budget 2023.
I’ve heard many stories of families desperately seeking care for their loved ones being turned away or discharged less than 24 hours after suicide attempts or self-harm. Our mental health care system is deeply broken. One in five British Columbians, 900,000 British Columbians, will develop a mental illness over their lifetime. Some of those may be related to addictions, but many will not be. Of the $1 billion, there is little for those with schizophrenia, with eating disorders, with dementia. This government currently is failing them.
My question is to the Premier. When will he fix the broken system of mental health care for all the people in British Columbia who depend on it?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you again to the member for his question. Investment in mental health and addictions, since 2017, has gone up more than any other area of health care — more than ambulance paramedics, more than surgery, more than any other. The system was not in place, I think we can all acknowledge that, to provide people the care that they need.
We have taken systematic steps to address that in a number of ways — 45,000 visits to counselling services not funded before, primary care networks that have added more than 200 full-time-equivalents to support family doctors and nurse practitioners in providing mental health services, building out a system of care for the very issues the member raises.
He’s quite right. There are many people in British Columbia who are not dealing with a dual diagnosis, are not dealing with addictions issues but are dealing with serious mental health issues. Even mild mental health issues have increased, clearly — we all know this, and we all feel this — during the pandemic. So he’s quite right.
We have to build that out in every aspect of care. In child and youth mental health, you’ve seen it in the Pathway to Hope initiatives that have taken place. In primary care, you’ve seen it in the major investment in primary care networks. You’ve seen it in the actions of successive Ministers of Mental Health and Addictions, in adding counselling services.
We have to continue to do that work. It’s essential, I think, in British Columbia — I think this is where the member and I would entirely agree — that we provide mental health services in the same way that we provide services for a broken leg or a seriously twisted ankle or any other ailment. That’s what we’re seeking to do.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES
IN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
J. Rustad: Six people die every day in B.C. from illicit drugs, but at the same time, almost six people die every day waiting for diagnostic services or surgeries in B.C. This is a visible and unacceptable failure of B.C.’s health care system and should alarm everyone.
When will this minister admit the failure of B.C.’s health care system and take steps to develop a new model?
Hon. A. Dix: The last week — it was recorded information — we set a record for February for the number of surgeries completed. A record. We did in January. We did in December. The all-time record was set in the middle of December in the midst of very significant challenges for our system with respect to respiratory illness.
We have reduced wait times for surgery in a pandemic, which is not an extraordinary achievement for me but for doctors and for surgical nurses. We have added 300 net new surgical nurses to the system to do that. We’ve put in place a surgical renewal commitment that’s had real impact for people, reducing wait times in key areas of care.
On diagnostic care, the member represents a constituency in the Northern Health Authority. He’ll know that that authority, in 2017, had the lowest level of MRI of any equivalent region in the country — No. 10. Well, really No. 13. We have changed that. We have more than doubled the number of MRIs so people in the Northern Health Authority get the same access to diagnostic care that everyone else in the country has and everyone else in the province has.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supplemental.
J. Rustad: Those numbers were a record high for the province for last year. But you know what? In addition to that, B.C. has 6,800 licensed family doctors in this province, yet only 3,200 are actually providing services. What on earth is the matter with this minister’s approach to health care that is keeping these health care workers from actually being in the system?
Instead of focusing on urgent and primary care — which costs approximately three times as much per visit, with far fewer visits per doctor than a family doctor — why isn’t this minister focusing on getting these registered family doctors back into the system? When will this minister put the needs of patients ahead of a broken system, which he is responsible for, and actually focus on a positive environment that will attract these doctors back into B.C.?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, there are 6,800 family doctors. Yes, that’s 600 more than there were when I became Minister of Health. All of them are working in B.C.
What he’s referring to, I think, is those who are delivering longitudinal family practice, which is higher than what he said but in the range of that — closer to 4,000 than to 3,200. All of those doctors are working. Many of them, for example, are family doctors working as hospitalists, providing care for people in the province now. He’ll know that there are more than 10,000 people in hospitals today. That’s significant.
What have we done? We developed, with Doctors of B.C., a new payment model. In the first month, 1,975 doctors have joined that payment model, including 167 that weren’t practising last year, in longitudinal family practice — in a month. We have added, through our new-to-practice contracts, a program that used to have 20 to 30 doctors, 116 new doctors to that program, because we worked with Resident Doctors of B.C. and Doctors of B.C. to make that effective and to make that work. We’ve tripled the number of nurse practitioners in B.C.
Those actions in primary care are working because we developed them with the workforce in primary care.
PROVISION OF UKRAINIAN-LANGUAGE
WRITTEN DRIVER’S
TEST
T. Shypitka: Families who have fled war-torn Ukraine require a driver’s licence to integrate into Canada and rebuild their lives. However, ICBC has failed to provide the written driver’s test in Ukrainian, despite the significant and increasing number of Ukrainian-speaking people in British Columbia.
They’re coming in by the thousands every day. The government and ICBC have cited cost as the reason for rejecting the addition of Ukrainian and, instead, suggest using phone translation services, which are very cumbersome and disjointed, or taking the written test in Russian. I don’t think I have to tell anyone in this chamber that requiring Ukrainians to take the written driver’s test in Russian is not only traumatic but also insulting for those who have fled Russian aggression.
Will the Premier see the indignity that this represents, when so many families are fleeing Russian oppression, and please allow Ukrainian as an additional language option?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I would agree with the challenges being faced by Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I can tell you that yes, there is the telecommunication language option on there, in terms of that translation. I also know that there have been, depending on certain parts of the province, access to those who speak Ukrainian, to assist Ukrainians who don’t speak English to be able to write that test, to assist with that.
I most certainly will take back the issue of being able to write the test in Ukrainian. I completely agree that asking to write in Russian is just completely unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kootenay East, supplemental.
T. Shypitka: Well, thank you to the minister for that moment of clarity. We’ve written the minister on this, and, as the minister knows, the letter that I got back was citing costs. Perhaps now the minister has reconsidered, and I would certainly appreciate that going forward.
There is a solution, as the minister knows. We have a group. Fortunately, we have a group, in Cranbrook, of volunteers. We’ve heard ministerial statements last week, talking about the support that all sides of the House want to give these refugees from Russian aggression.
We’ve heard the member for Prince George–Valemount talk about her support group in her community. They’re across the province. We have a group in Cranbrook that has stepped forward to cover costs and organize the written translation for the Ukrainian test option, which I informed the minister about probably a couple of weeks ago now.
The communities are stepping up. The organizations are stepping up. The people are stepping up. Will the Premier please step up, do the right thing, accept the community proposal from Al MacBean and our volunteers in Cranbrook and translate the ICBC driver’s test into Ukrainian?
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, I will be ensuring that ICBC is able to provide the test for people in Ukrainian. Don’t worry. It will be done.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES
IN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
D. Davies: It’s sad that day after day we bring up example after example of the failures in our health care system, which seem to continue to be downplayed by this government.
I give another example of that. Morris is a senior from Fort St. John with a wife and family. A year ago he was diagnosed with an intestinal blockage and placed on a surgical wait-list. For ten agonizing months, Morris was forced to manage his excruciating pain with Tylenol 3 and to make repeated visits to the emergency room, with days that he could only drink Glucerna for his nourishment.
Finally, Morris did undergo surgery on December 23, only to discover that cancer had been growing in his intestines for the last ten months. To make things worse, not all the cancer could be removed. Now Morris’s family is living in constant fear that the cancer may be rapidly growing and late stage and that he may tragically pass away before he receives treatment. Morris has been waiting for ten excruciating weeks for his pathology reports and a specific diagnosis and medical treatment plan.
Can the Premier finally take responsibility for this catastrophic failure in our health care system, under his watch, and give Morris’s family the treatment he needs?
Hon. A. Dix: Of course, when such matters come to people’s families, it has a devastating effect — not just on Morris, in this case, but on the entire family. So our hearts go out to them. A diagnosis that’s discovered in the midst of another procedure is devastating. You’re preparing for something profoundly difficult, and another diagnosis comes.
The member knows, in terms of the specific case…. I can’t speak of those specific cases in the House. He knows that. He also knows that I will follow up with him on the specific issue.
With respect to surgeries and surgical wait-lists, I think the evidence is pretty clear. B.C.’s surgical renewal commitment is being followed by the entire country because of the very reasons he states. It’s so important for people to get the surgery they need when they need it.
That’s why we’re doing record numbers of surgeries now. It’s because people, regardless of whether it’s a surgery that involves life and death or someone’s sight or someone’s ability to move…. All medically necessary surgery is important. That’s why we’ve expanded the number of operating room nurses, expanded the number of medical device processing technicians, expanded the number of surgeons, expanded surgical hours by 175,000. Still, as the member knows, it doesn’t always work in that way for everybody. We’re going to continue to pursue those initiatives.
I’ll be happy to talk to the hon. member about his constituent and their circumstances, as he would expect me to do and I know the member has done, because we’ve done this in the past. We’ll work through that with the family in the most appropriate possible way.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
In Committee A, I call continued supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: While we await the arrival of the minister, we will just take a short recess.
The House recessed at 10:57 a.m.
Committee of Supply
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND
SOLICITOR GENERAL
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11 a.m.
The Chair: All right, Members. We’ll call this debate into session of estimates — supplementary estimates, to be clear.
As the Committee of Supply examines the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, I would just ask that members remember that the debate shall be focused on the additional funding request for this ministry. Consideration of supplementary estimates, of course, is not the place for an expansive look at ministry operations, in the way that we do for main estimates, which will be coming up.
Of course, if you have broad questions for the upcoming main estimates process, I would ask you to use them then and keep your questions focused on the supplemental funding request. An overview, if you don’t have it, is provided on page 1 of the supplementary estimates book.
On Vote 41(S): ministry operations, $150,000,000.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to be able to speak today about the supplementary estimates from our ministry, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I’d like to introduce my team, who is here to support me in this process. First is my deputy minister, Doug Scott. Glen Lewis is the assistant deputy minister of policing and security programs. As well, David Hoadley, our chief financial officer, is also here.
From the Ministry of Citizens’ Services we also have, supporting the assistant deputy minister of connectivity division, Susan Stanford and Ivan Rincon, the executive director for project management.
Today, I’m here to outline the investment of $150 million for the local government next gen 911 readiness fund. The Canadian Radio-television — CRTC — has mandated national implementation of next gen 911 and the decommissioning of the current 911 networks by March 4, 2025.
If confirmed, this funding from year-end provincial surplus will meet that mandate and will offset the costs required to set up and transition to NG911. The fund includes $90 million to flow directly to E-Comm to offset local government NG911 implementation costs and $60 million to flow to the Union of B.C. Municipalities to be distributed amongst their members.
This one-time funding covers E-Comm’s software, hardware and labour costs to connect regions to the network, and system operability and municipal costs associated with training, education, program delivery, public outreach and audits. I’m pleased that this investment is taking place. It’s going to support safer, faster and more reliable emergency response services in our province. I’m now pleased to answer any questions.
E. Sturko: Good morning to everyone. Can the minister please answer, for me, when they first became aware of the requirement for the next gen 911?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a project that has been under discussion for a number of years, ever since the CRTC did the ruling that all provinces need to move this to the next gen. All provinces are currently engaged in doing that and in meeting the target of March 4, 2025.
E. Sturko: It was my understanding that the CRTC decision came down in 2017, and then plans would have been going forward with the service provider from that time. My question: why wasn’t this part of the 2022-23 budget, or any of the previous budgets since 2017?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d like to make a couple of points to the member’s question. First, this is actually a municipal responsibility. There’s a local government responsibility. The province, in this case, is stepping in. We’ve been very much aware of the requirement to move to next gen 911 by 2025.
We know the work that has been underway in other provinces around this. Our province has been working closely with local government, understanding what has been taking place and the pressures that they have been under. That’s why the province is recognizing this as a significant cost to them. The province is assisting them in the implementation, to make sure that it’s done in time for March of 2025. Every other province is doing the same thing.
E. Sturko: Thank you for that response, again. Were business cases, then, brought forward by E-Comm and through the UBCM for the individual services? How was the amount of money that would be provided by the government calculated, then, based on what the CRTC upgrades would look like for the individual communities?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we did consult with E-Comm. The estimates that have resulted in the final figure are based on the information and the consultation that we had with them.
E. Sturko: In the business case that was provided by E-Comm, then, or the consultations that took place, is there a specific breakdown on what will be for the training for individuals working now with the new system? As I understand, it has a lot of new technical upgrades, particularly for operators. Do you have a breakdown on what those funds will look like?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The $90 million that goes to E-Comm is for the hardware, the software and the physical upgrading of the system. The $60 million that goes through the UBCM is for the training, the audits and the whole range of, in essence, what they call soft services.
Whenever there’s a technological system, you’ve got what they refer to as hard services and soft services. That $60 million through the UBCM is for those soft services, which are the training for the audits and the fact that this is now a brand-new system that has — I’m not the most tech person — all the associated issues of technology that those working on it need to know about.
E. Sturko: One of the things, as I understand, with the new system that is actually quite impressive is their ability to receive things like real-time video, a lot of new real-time texting and things like that that would be a significant change for the way that people in British Columbia currently interact with 911 and emergency services.
Has the province accommodated anything in this budget that would help the public understand this new upgrade and how people will be able to use it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there is public education and outreach on the new system and how it will work when it comes into operation. That’s built into the $60 million that goes to local governments through the UBCM.
The Chair: Are there any further questions?
E. Sturko: Sorry, I was just taking some notes.
In a previous question, you responded that in the UBCM, everybody in the province has this requirement under the CRTC to come up to speed with the next gen 911, and the province has stepped in, now, to help roll this out, with some additional funding. Is this indicative of the province taking responsibility, then, for provincial 911 services?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it’s not.
E. Sturko: Did each municipality provide input on their specific requirements, or was this done as an overall estimate by your ministry?
The Chair: I believe it’s the member’s first estimates, and I just want to make sure that everyone understands that the form of address we use in this chamber is through the Chair. Instead of referring to a minister as “you,” it would be to refer to “the minister” and “would the minister.”
Welcome to your first estimates.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. E-Comm works with the municipalities in terms of getting an understanding of their costs, and because they work with them and they have that relationship, they’re able to understand what the costs are. That’s how they take that and come up with the figure that was required, in terms of the money that we provided.
E. Sturko: How long ago did the minister receive any kind of input from UBCM and the regional districts for upgrades within those areas of responsibility?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d say it’s been ongoing for quite a few years that whenever there are situations like this that are requiring a significant upgrade or investment in….
It doesn’t just have to be E-Comm. Local government is often wanting to know if there’s a way in which the province can assist them with items, issues like this that are going to be very expensive. It doesn’t matter. It’s like this. You could look at bridges or roads or schools. It’s the full range of infrastructure. They’re always eager and pleased to take help if they can get it.
E. Sturko: It’s my understanding that these were a one-time fund. Can the minister say whether or not there will be any ongoing funding for operations or maintenance of the new system?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a one-time grant in terms of enabling them to do this transition, and they are aware of this. This is a municipal function, but it is one-time funding.
E. Sturko: Can the minister tell us when he was aware of the numbers and the amount of money that would be required to get this project going?
Hon. M. Farnworth: About a year ago we received from E-Comm that they…. Obviously, they had been doing work around this in terms of the kinds of numbers that they were looking at that it was going to cost to implement the transition. It was about a year ago.
E. Sturko: Can the minister provide any information on what type of review or planning went in through this government in terms of emergency planning and looking at emergency services after 2017, when the CRTC decision was made, and why it was only a year ago that the government would have started looking into it and making sure that, on such a tight deadline now…?
It’s only another year from now that the deadline would be for us to switch our entire systems over to the new digital 911.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I just wanted to clarify.
E-Comm would have been working on this since 2017, and it is a local government responsibility. So they’re doing all that work, finding out what it’s going to require, what it’s going to involve, not just for E-Comm itself but for the local governments. And it is a significant cost.
It’s about that year ago they came to us saying: “Look, this is the work that’s been done. This is what we’re doing. This is what we’re looking at in the way of expenditure in terms of doing this, and it’s a significant cost, and help would be appreciated.”
E. Sturko: Can the minister tell me if it’s a provincial responsibility to make sure that emergency services and 911 services are accessible throughout the province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: A couple of points. One, 911 service is mandated to local government.
At the same time, in terms of the providers, the telecoms, they’re regulated by the CRTC in terms of being able to make sure that they are able to provide that service. The CRTC has said that they think that in order to do this transition, provinces are going to need to, which is why we’re bringing forward the $150 million.
E. Sturko: Knowing that public safety and access to emergency services is a provincial responsibility, although I do understand that the mandate for implementing and ensuring that adequate services are in place for 911….
I’m just wondering. Knowing that it’s the responsibility of the government to ensure that people are safe and do have access, why did it take the government so long to ensure that this project was adequately funded for such a significant undertaking?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, and I would say this. It’s not a case of the province taking so long. It is an issue of…. The CRTC made the mandate.
Local government — it is their responsibility. They know that. They have been doing the work over the last number of years to get to the point that they know what it is in terms of the financial commitment that’s going to be required, the kind of systems upgrades that are going to be needed. Every other province is going through the same process. The work has been done so that we will be ready to do that transition for March 4 of 2025.
They came and indicated, “Look, this is what it’s going to cost us,” just about a year ago. This is the way in which the province has decided to assist them — the block funding, this one-time block funding grant.
I can tell you that other provinces have chosen a different way of doing that. They have put a call levy on phones — it’s cell phones, I believe — to be able to fund it. That’s not something that I think would have helped, in the sense of…. It just makes cell phone bills more expensive.
Ontario is doing what we are doing. They are giving a block grant to ensure that it is implemented.
That was the process by which we decided that we could best assist local governments in this CRTC-mandated transition.
E. Sturko: Knowing that the request from municipalities and regional districts and E-Comm came about a year ago, indicating that they could use some help to get this project underway…. It is a significant project. It’s crazy. I went through a process like this when I was in Surrey RCMP. We went from analog to digital. It’s a big job.
I’m just wondering. When did the Treasury Board approve the release of funds?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the Finance Minister who can answer the questions around Treasury Board. That’s their responsibility, which they guard jealously.
E. Sturko: I just have a question about the levies. I understand….
A lot of other provinces have provincial mandates for 911. That’s not the case here in B.C. You’ve made that clear.
I’m just wondering if the minister would indicate why they’ve chosen not to go with the levy. A small fee, a nominal fee, had been placed on land lines. As people no longer have land lines and everybody texts and uses cell phones, that revenue stream, which would actually help for the maintenance and the operations of our new digital 911…. That revenue has dried up.
Why are we not going forward with a levy for cell phones?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m saying this answer slightly tongue in cheek. I know my colleague from Abbotsford West will probably appreciate this answer.
The reason we’re doing a block grant, as opposed to putting a levy on cell phone bills, is…. That would increase people’s cell phone costs, even marginally. If we did that, I can guarantee you that he or you would probably stand up in question period going: “Why are you making people’s lives more expensive?”
On a more serious side, it is a method that you can use. Other provinces have done that.
The affordability issue is a real issue for people. It was felt, at this time, that this block funding grant, similar to what they did in Ontario, was the easiest way to get the money to local governments in a timely fashion, and then they’re able to make the transition by March 4 of 2025.
E. Sturko: Can the minister…? Does he have any information on whether or not any projections have been done? Will this actually add costs in terms of operating and maintenance, then, going forward, given that some of the new equipment that’s being installed and retrofitted into E-Comm and other municipal services is expensive? Has there been any consideration for what…?
Yes. Nobody wants to be the one in question period getting the finger pointed at them for raising costs. But is avoiding the levy, then, actually just passing on this increased cost to the municipalities?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make a number of points. First, it is new technology, and quite often that does increase costs. That being said, it also increases efficiency. It also increases effectiveness. So those things start to balance off of each other.
This is about the transition to the next system. In terms of the future, that’s one of those things…. Once everything is up and running and E-Comm is able to look and say: “Okay, here’s how it’s working. Here’s how implementation is taking place….” Then they’ll have an understanding of exactly what things are like going forward.
This, at the end of the day, has been mandated. It is required for us to do. It’s in the implementation phase right now, and then the future is just that. But one of the things we always try and do is work with local governments and E-Comm to ensure that the system is running properly and that it’s doing everything that it’s supposed to be able to do.
E. Sturko: How long will it take? There is a deadline, which has been set by the CRTC, to have communities all across the country come into the next gen 911. Is there any concern that our municipalities and E-Comm will not meet this deadline? Is there anything that has been placed in the budget that may help them with any potential need for expedited services?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. What I can say about this is…. E-Comm has been working on this. They have been working with the individual municipalities on this. They have a plan in place in terms of how it will be implemented. That’s what they have let us know.
The expectation is that they will be able to meet the mandated deadline of March 4, 2025.
E. Sturko: B.C. still has lots of locations where people have to use a ten-digit phone number to call for emergency services. Are there any plans to upgrade 911 services in locations that currently don’t have access to 911?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll say this to the member. There are areas of the province that do not — she is correct — have 911 service today. That’s a separate effort, if you like, from what we’re talking about today, which is for those areas served by 911.
The issue that she’s talking about, those areas that aren’t connected…. The province’s connectivity initiatives and work that has been underway are dealing with those areas that don’t have cell service at the current time.
This just deals with those that do, and the upgrades that are required for those communities that are served by 911.
E. Sturko: For those communities that don’t yet have that 911 service, do they fall under that CRTC regulation? Is that a requirement that’s provincial, that they should? Is it a requirement that they, too, meet that 2025 next gen 911 deadline?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. No, this only covers those communities served by 911. It does not cover those that aren’t.
E. Sturko: What I’ve learned about the next gen 911 is it’s going to be awesome, with real-time video, things that can really help people here, not only with crimes but with health emergencies. I think it’s going to be great. It’s disappointing to know that not everybody is going to have access to it, particularly in some of our more remote locations.
Has the government set any timeline or made any budgetary considerations to have these 911 services in those remote areas upgraded?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The areas that the member is talking about are covered by our connectivity work and program, which aims to have all communities not connected to high-speed Internet connected by 2027. Then, once they are able to get 911, it would automatically be the next gen 911 service that they would be accessing.
E. Sturko: Will key highways be connected to high-speed Internet? Will people be able to, from highways and other travelling locations, connect to 911?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Yes, that is part of government’s plan. That work is also being done in a number of other ministries.
E. Sturko: Are there currently communities that are connected to the analog 911 system that do not have high-speed Internet? Will there be implications for them? Is there going to be a delay in the rollout of these next gen services to them?
Hon. M. Farnworth: If you have 911 service today, you will have 911 service under the new next gen 911. Telus has committed to making sure that’s the case.
E. Sturko: When I went through the CRTC decision, it spoke about having analog and digital systems running parallel to ensure that there are no hiccups, I guess, with the system and to make sure that everything goes smoothly with the rollout.
I’m wondering if there’s going to be a time in our province when we end up having those parallel systems and if there’s sort of a timeline or anything you can share with me about the decommissioning of the analog system.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they are parallel systems. Then the CRTC will be the one that decides when one of the systems, the old one, is discontinued.
E. Sturko: Speaking again about the more remote communities, the ones that don’t currently have the 911 system and are waiting for more upgrades for connectivity, a lot of these places have very small tax bases. Will there be future funding, then, similar to what we have, this $150 million helping E-Comm and UBCM? Are they going to have to fork over their own cash? Or has there been consideration of a plan to help these as well?
Hon. M. Farnworth: That is down the road. That is in the future, so those would be decisions that a future government would have to make. I just think, as a general principle, you do want to treat people fairly.
E. Sturko: What was the process that you used to determine the allocation of these amounts, the $60 million and $90 million?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be a combination of two things. One, E-Comm coming to us with the estimates, and then second, the consultation with UBCM.
E. Sturko: In a previous answer, you had mentioned that, potentially, there are efficiencies that will come with this upgraded system. I’m wondering: will there be any vacancies created? Will there be any other benefits, in terms of the stress and pressures that the human resources in E-Comm and other 911s are feeling, as a result of this rollout?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll just say this. I can’t speak to the day-to-day operations, in an E-Comm and in the dispatch room.
What I do know, and I think the member would agree, is that whenever there is an upgrade to a system that allows you to do a lot more than you have been able to do previously, knowing that you’re dealing with potentially life-and-death situations, you’re able to give better information, more timely information, to first responders, and to know, then, what they’re going into.
I think that helps everybody, and I think that makes for…. I don’t want to say…. Well, yeah, better job satisfaction, but also, it probably does reduce stress, knowing that you’re doing everything that you can to assist someone at a time of crisis. I think that’s what I would say in answer to your question.
E. Sturko: In the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, one of the suggestions had been an additional option for 911, to have an option for mental health. Will the new next gen 911…? Is there any kind of thought, particularly when we’re talking about this amount of money in this budget, that will allow for the implementation of that recommendation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, this money is strictly for the implementation of next gen 911 and the hardware, the training and that. But the issue the member speaks to is one that is very much, I would say, alive within government. It does involve a number of ministries on a number of the recommendations in the report that the member is referring to. That’s sort of in a separate file, but it is one that we’re very much aware of.
E. Sturko: How many municipalities are going to be partaking in this $60 million?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Literally all municipalities are able to get it, but I will also check for the member, and we’ll get back to her in terms of if there are any that aren’t. We’ll let her know.
E. Sturko: Minister, thank you for that.
So all the municipalities — or assumed to be, at this point, all the municipalities — are receiving a portion of the $60 million. How is the division of that municipal funding determined?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. It will be similar to how E-Comm is funded now. It’s based on a formula that involves population and number of calls, for example. It’ll be a very similar approach to that.
E. Sturko: Since 2017’s CRTC ruling made it that everybody in Canada needs to upgrade to next gen 911…. I think anyone who knows about the program knows it’s going to really make a difference for Canada’s 911 system.
But when we look across Canada, we can see that, in fact, most other provinces are way ahead of where we are here in B.C. Can you speak at all to, in terms of the rollout of our next gen 911, why our province seems to be so far behind?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. I’d make this observation: that we’re not all starting from point zero. Different provinces have different approaches in terms of how their systems are set up — and at different stages.
What’s important is: are we going to meet the timeline that’s required by the CRTC? And the answer to that is yes. In this province, it’s very much a local government responsibility. They have been working very hard to make sure that they can meet that target line.
One of the crucial pieces, obviously, is the cost of putting in the implementation. That’s where the province has stepped up and said: “Yeah, we understand, and we’ll provide that funding for you to be able to do that.” That’s exactly what’s taking place. It’s: “There’s the deadline. We’ll meet the deadline.” The province will meet the deadline. Local governments will meet the deadline. That’s what needs to happen.
E. Sturko: How was the decision made to include this next generation 911 into supplementary estimates, instead of…? Knowing that this has been on the go since 2017, having had it identified by municipalities and regional districts that this was a significant cost to them, why is this a supplement and hasn’t been included in previous budgets?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll just say this. This has been an ongoing project since the mandate from the CRTC. As I said, local government has been working very hard. E-Comm has been working very hard. They came just over a year ago to let us know that they actually had a plan and that this is what it was going to cost.
Subsequent to that, the province finds itself in a position where we’re able to look at a way of funding this that’s just a straight block grant, which is an easy way to deliver. So the decision is made to do that. Because that’s outside of the initial budget tabled last year, it would be captured by what’s called the supplemental estimates process, which is what we are doing right now.
They’re extremely happy that they’re getting the funding and that we will meet the timeline of March 4, 2025. I think that’s going to be good for the province and the people.
E. Sturko: How does the inclusion of the new funding in the supplementary estimates impact the ministry’s overall budget?
Hon. M. Farnworth: It doesn’t impact the budget. It is a straight transfer to E-Comm and to UBCM.
E. Sturko: Does the government have any concerns and a strategy to increase awareness of the vital role of 911 operators to provide assistance and to ensure, actually, that we have adequate human resources available for the rollout?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This funding is for the technology, the hardware and the software. But I’m aware that E-comm does have a plan in place for that implementation, in terms of staff. As I said earlier too, within the $60 million, part of that $60 million is to raise awareness, is to let people know about what is happening. That will be within the province.
I fully expect, as well, that you’ll see a national approach, because this is a big deal right across the country. So I think there will be a fair amount of public awareness when the implementation takes place, when we hit that 2025 date.
E. Sturko: You have your supplemental funding, which is covering, of course, the technological rollout, some training that’ll be delivered through the UBCM, municipalities and regional districts. Is there any funding within the budget for 911?
We’re talking about significant changes to the way that people interact with emergency services in British Columbia, and although it’s coming in 2025 — that’s when the deadline is — as different types of dispatch centres make this change, the public will need to be educated on what services are actually being provided.
Is there anything in the budget beyond this supplement — which, you stated, does not cover that kind of public education — that will help ensure that British Columbians know how to interact with their brand-new 911 system?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make two points.
First, the question is actually about future budgets down the road.
That being said, as I’ve said in some of the answers to the questions that you’ve asked, the $60 million that goes to UBCM goes out the door by the 31st of March. That, then, is directly to UBCM. Within that funding are moneys for education, for raising awareness, for communicating those changes that are taking place.
With that, hon. Chair, noting the hour, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF
INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); F. Donnelly in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.
We’re meeting today to continue the discussion on the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
On Vote 34(S): treaty and other agreements funding, $75,000,000 (continued).
M. Lee: I appreciate that, with the time we have remaining, we can pick up the discussion from yesterday.
The minister, just before we adjourned the committee review, made a response, which I’d like to respond to, relating to the Northern First Nations Alliance and their proposal for a detox and wellness centre, including a facility in Terrace.
Just to clarify, my focus on the Tahltan was…. As the minister points out, currently the alliance membership includes four First Nations — the Gitxsan, Haisla, Nisga’a and Tsimshian — representing nine Indigenous communities. We talked in brief about those communities in the northwest of B.C. that are involved in terms of the area of coverage for these nations.
If I had the opportunity yesterday…. I’ll say it now. I will point out that the feasibility study, which the minister does have a copy of, does include the centre’s greater…. This is the health and wellness detox centre to be located in Terrace. It does have a greater scope to it in terms of nations. In particular, it refers to ensuring…. It will reinforce the cultural protocols of the Tsimshian, Nisga’a, Haisla, Gitxsan-Wet’suwet’en, Haida and Tahltan.
As I understand it from the health and wellness committee of the Northern First Nations Alliance, they have had discussions with the Tahltan Nation, and they’re showing significant interest in being involved. In fact, there have been ongoing discussions, as well, with the Kaska and the Taku River Tlingit, the other two members of the 3Nations Society, which is the subject matter of the fifth agreement that we’re reviewing here. That is the 3Nations B.C. regional partnership agreement.
I believe that the reason for that, of course, for the other involvements, is the greater understanding of the need in the northwest, which is connected to all of these nations. So we do have an opportunity, where the nations are coming together, to focus on the need for a health and wellness and a detox centre here, to be located in Terrace, which is accessible to all the northern communities.
Working in partnership with the municipalities, Northern Health and the FNHA…. As the minister did cite, FNHA, the First Nations Health Authority, did provide the funding, $100,000, to fund the feasibility study, copies of which have been provided to the Premier and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions as well.
I wanted to just take this opportunity, though, before I ask the minister to respond to that clarification in terms of the involvement of the other nations, to read into the record….
I did receive a communication from the co-chair of the health and wellness committee, Linda Morven. She sent a personal note. I just think, under the circumstances, recognizing the focus that we all have in this chamber on the importance of mental wellness and addiction recovery….
She says:
“I strongly believe that we need to stress the significance of the need for the detox and wellness centre in northern B.C.”
She speaks from her personal experience.
“We lost one of our granddaughters in December from an overdose and lost another granddaughter this month from an overdose. Both were in their early 20s, and both of them wanted to live and get well. One of them left two children.”
She sent me photos of the children, who are very cute.
“Both strived to get well and couldn’t begin due to the lack of resources in northern B.C., in our area. They waited, like many of our loved ones who waited, and time definitely was not on their side.
“Yes, this is personal for me. It’s personal for all of us and our families and communities who have lost loved ones due to addictions. We are losing many family members. The system is failing us. We can’t lose another family member to this crisis.
“I am so scared for another one of our granddaughters, who is addicted to heroin and has been for a number of years. The good news is that she took it upon herself to get clean and has been for over four months. She detoxed on her own. She lives in Terrace, B.C., which is where this regional centre is to be located, but won’t go to treatment as she doesn’t want to leave her daughter. I’m so proud of her, but I’m also so scared for her. She needs treatment.
“We need detox and treatment in our area. How many more of our loved ones are going to lose their lives before our province helps us? We’re their voice, and we need this heard and supported by B.C.
“Thank you again. I hope and pray our project is funded.”
This project is the proposal by the Northern First Nations Alliance for this detox and wellness centre in northwest B.C.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me the opportunity to read that. I do think her ending statement is important. When we talk about hearing voices from First Nations leaders, that’s what we pay respect to in this House. Thank you for giving me that opportunity to read it to the House.
I know the minister understands the need. I know that. I know he recognizes the importance of this feasibility study. He commented on that yesterday.
Let me just stop there. I’ll give the minister an opportunity to respond. Then I do have a follow-up question relating to how this fits with the 3Nations-B.C. regional partnership agreement.
Hon. M. Rankin: Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge again that we are conducting this work on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.
I just want to respond, if I may, to the member for his advocacy and his compassion for what Linda Morven shared with him and now through to the Legislature through his reading into the record of the tragedy of the loss of her two grandchildren. It’s unimaginable. We, obviously, empathize on this side of the House, as I know the member does, as well, with that terrible loss.
We also are pleased that the member pointed out that there are discussions underway with the Tahltan, who aren’t part of the existing…. The Tahltan Nation…. Indeed, he mentioned the Taku River Tlingit, I believe, and the Kaska interests.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity to review the feasibility study last night. It, indeed, is an extraordinarily powerful piece of work, well regarded by those who look at these studies, I’m told. I’m pleased that the First Nations Health Authority saw fit to provide funding to create such a powerful document, such a thoughtful and thorough document.
Of course, I’ll be working with my colleagues in other ministries and, indeed, with the Indigenous Services Canada department to see whether some of the things that are sought and so urgently needed can be created.
I think I’ll leave it at that at this point. I believe the member has a subsequent question.
M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response and his care and attention to look at the feasibility study again. I agree with him. The work that was done to put that together by Manon Joice and others with the health and wellness committee, members of which I read into the record yesterday, with Linda…. It is remarkable to try and pull all these aspects together.
In the context of the challenge, of course…. And the minister commented on that. We are talking about the continued need to support remote Indigenous communities, some of whom have greater opportunities, let’s say, to move forward with economic reconciliation. But some of them do not.
I think the nations, working together, can, hopefully, support each other to increase the access to much-needed mental health and addiction recovery-type facilities like the ones proposed in Terrace.
My question is back to this fifth agreement that we’re looking at. I do appreciate the minister’s second part of his response, in terms of potential next steps as to the discussions that he is willing, let’s say, to take up with his colleagues and to look to his federal counterparts, as well, for this important project, recognizing that under this supplemental estimates process, the accelerated payment under this fifth agreement, the $10.99 million, is being accelerated from four years to this year, in effect.
My point, which I was making yesterday…. I asked the minister to consider this a little further in response.
We have a situation where this government has determined that there is a surplus. It has made certain decisions, with the minister’s input and his team, to put $75 million towards accelerated payments under six agreements.
This fifth agreement, though, as I was trying to work through yesterday with the minister, includes references to supporting wellness for the communities and emerging social priorities. I believe, when I look at this agreement, that the important work that the three nations are doing — the Tahltan, the Kaska and the Taku River Tlingit…. They are all moving in the same direction.
I appreciate that there are other nations and other communities and municipalities, Terrace itself…. We had the mayor of Terrace here last week, the new mayor, talking about the importance of the resource benefits alliance, as well, the RBA arrangement.
There’s lots of need, of course. As we look at the First Nations and the role that they play in leading in areas, there’s a certain amount of coordination that is necessary here.
In the face of the fact that the government did receive this feasibility study back in November, or earlier, and did write back to this health and wellness committee about going to the First Nations Health Authority….
Does the minister not see a path here, for this proposal, to work together with these nations, as it looks further to its own strategic path, which is being reported on, recognizing the agreement was only entered into — and I’m sure there was work leading into it — in September of 2022? I’m suggesting that there are combined efforts going in the same direction, an area of great need and an emerging social priority, to say the least.
Linda’s words are important. It’s more than emerging. We all know this. It’s generational, especially with Indigenous peoples and their children, their daughters, their granddaughters, as Linda underscored.
My question and suggestion to the minister. Is there not a path, under this agreement, for the Northern First Nations Alliance to come together with these three First Nations, under their partnership regional agreement, to find a path and, perhaps…? What I’m, obviously, looking at is access to some, if not a good portion, of that funding that this government is making available, on an accelerated basis, to meet a need that is clearly more than emerging.
Hon. M. Rankin: I want to just start by agreeing with the member about the power of nations coming together. That is what he refers to in the context of the Northern First Nations Alliance. Also, of course, the 3Nations agreement that we’re talking about is the product of three nations — the Tahltan, Kaska, Taku River Tlingit — coming together, and it’s that which we really welcome and support. Therefore, under the agreement that’s at issue, there is, as I mentioned yesterday, a strategic pathways workplan in which the nations will be determining their priorities.
I’m sure that these discussions are underway, and the opportunities will be there to assess and discuss many of these projects, perhaps including the one that’s before us. It’s for the 3Nations, in application of that workplan, where resolution of this issue may occur. I wouldn’t want to be seen as suggesting that it is for us to do. This is, as it says in the very title of the agreement, a regional partnership agreement with the 3Nations and the province of British Columbia.
M. Lee: I appreciate the time that the minister has taken in this process to address this particular project. It’s an important one, but it’s only one important project in the province, of course, to some nations.
I wanted to come back, though. Yesterday we were talking at length about the process in terms of the determination of the allocation of a surplus by this government to these particular nations themselves. I wanted to talk through some of those points as to how this came together.
So let me ask, first: in terms of these six accelerated payments under these six agreements, were any of these accelerated payments any of the six? In which case, which ones were reviewed or approved by Treasury Board?
Hon. M. Rankin: I can confirm for the member that, indeed, all six of the agreements at issue were the subject of Treasury Board approval.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I’m referring to the decision to accelerate the payments, which is a new $75 million expenditure under each of the six agreements in total. That’s what I’m referring to: the accelerated payments themselves, not just the agreements reviewed and approved by Treasury Board.
Hon. M. Rankin: Of course we had extensive discussion of this very question yesterday, and I’ll try to do my best to say what I said yesterday, perhaps in different terms.
This ministry and others were asked to identify items for supplementary estimates based on government priorities. The Premier made it clear that the government would seek to use the 2022-2023 revenue improvement to help British Columbians as opportunities became available. Therefore this ministry identified, as I indicated yesterday, candidates where that could be done, namely the accelerated payments under existing agreements, and that was the process that was followed.
I’ll defer the question about the supplementary supply process to the Minister of Finance.
M. Lee: When I hear that response from the minister, and in the background of the previous responses he gave yesterday on similar questions, I didn’t hear an answer directly back about the Treasury Board approval process, but I’ll take that as not addressing it. Presumably the minister would say: “Well, take it up with the Minister of Finance.” So we’ll just park that. I’m sure my colleague, the shadow minister for Finance, will have that opportunity, maybe even as early as his review on other matters this afternoon.
I hear the minister when the minister speaks about government priorities. But of course, as we know, under UNDRIP and the relationship that we continue to try and forge and move forward in this province around reconciliation, we need to hear from First Nations as well, nation to nation. The nation-to-nation priorities that are expressed under the overall framework, including the DRIPA action plan and the other alternatives and other priorities, let’s say, that we collectively need to have in this province.
With that in mind, and with that view in mind, I’d like to ask the minister: were there other priorities of this ministry that were considered as alternatives to accelerated payments under six existing agreements? What I’m referring to is this.
The minister did take us through the agreement process yesterday and how these six agreements fit within the criteria that the minister spelled out. Just stepping back from that. When the Minister of Finance and the Premier came to this ministry to ask for those priorities to be reflected in the expenditure of a surplus, were there other ministry priorities, recognizing what I said about First Nations, considered as an alternative to accelerating payments to select chosen First Nations?
Hon. M. Rankin: I can answer the member as follows. This of course is the limited scope of the supplementary estimates process that’s before us. And in that narrow compass, we concluded that the priorities for these nations reflected in these agreements was where this ministry wished to provide the limited funding available, the circumscribed process before us in supplementary estimates.
I put it in that context because of course we will have ample opportunity through the main estimates process coming up later this year to go through the entire array of priorities and serious issues that face our ministry at any given time as we work toward reconciliation, on so many fronts, with the 203 First Nations in our province and, of course, Métis Nation B.C. as well. I think I’d frame the answer in that way.
M. Lee: I’m conscious that we’re getting close here in terms of the timing, but let me just say this. To be clear, certainly as members of this House and members of the official opposition, all members respect the nations who are entered into these agreements. We talked yesterday about the work that was done in the previous B.C. Liberal government with the Cheslatta Carrier Nation, for example. That’s one of the six agreements. We obviously recognize and respect the importance of that work.
But I have to say that in successive rounds of questioning through yesterday and this morning, there is a real lack of clarity and transparency as to the government’s process. We have what’s remarkable — that the Minister of Finance would come to this minister and say, with no limits, no allocation: “What do you want to spend money on?” That does invite a question as to all the other pressing priorities of government, nation to nation, with the nations in our province.
It’s been three and a half years since UNDRIP was adopted. The member for Saanich North and the Islands yesterday highlighted…. There are many important leaders in our province. They all are. But Khelsilem, of the Squamish First Nation, in talking publicly in response to this budget, talking about the importance of capacity funding under section 3 of the DRIPA act, the overload that government is presenting to nations…. That is clearly a priority of government, if not of the nations themselves.
I talked about the Northern First Nations Alliance, and the minister has responded in a good way, in the way he is able to in the confines of supplementary estimates, as he points out. I understand that. But there are clearly other priorities that this government could have, should have — maybe they did — considered and dismissed.
They came to six agreements, which are obligated by this government, this province. They’re legal agreements that have funding requirements to them, and this government has decided to accelerate the payments. I appreciate, again, for example, that in the case of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation, it’s long overdue, long overdue through successive governments. I understand that.
But we have choices that this government is making, and I’m not getting any clarity from this minister or this government as to the manner in which they made these choices. This causes me a lot of concern. When we talk about ensuring that there are results and outcomes for how government expends taxpayer dollars, when we talk about the reporting and accountability measures that are set out in this fifth agreement, measures that have not yet been tested….
I appreciate, again, the reputation that the minister cited of the three chiefs, and I have respect for them as well, certainly. But we haven’t seen anything come back in terms of the report. In round numbers, $5 million has gone out to that 3Nations society agreement. Now we’re talking about another $10.9 million going out.
We’ve had no reporting, as far as I can determine, accounting and coming back. So when I ask questions about “What’s the identification of emerging priorities under that important work?” it’s not yet there. Yet the government is choosing to accelerate four years of payments in one year, not even getting a progress report back because it’s not called for in the agreement yet.
We haven’t gone through the full fiscal year — I understand that — by the terms of the agreement. But surely this government would ask for a report prior to spending more dollars. We know the need is so great for Indigenous nations and First Nations, including Métis Nation B.C.
I have real difficulty with this process, what’s been presented. We were presented six agreements without any notice. We did have some support in getting copies of these agreements. We are not having the time to turn to the sixth agreement, the Gitanyow agreement, because it’s confidential. I understand that in the minister’s response yesterday, but it’s very difficult to talk about acceleration of payment terms under an agreement that I have not seen, that this government has not been in position to share.
Even when we’re talking about the Cheslatta Carrier Nation, when the minister yesterday turned me to the website, A to Z…. There are many agreements, of course, under “C” for Cheslatta Carrier. The third agreement, that had the payment obligations, wasn’t even on the website, meaning we were going around a bit, let’s just say, in fairness to me and the role that I can play, in terms of: how can I properly address the payment obligations that this government has under that agreement, that has been accelerated under the supplemental estimates?
I’m very concerned as to the message that this government is sending through this minister to the other nations. So let me ask this minister, who I respect: what is the message to the other First Nations that were not included in the accelerated payments under these six agreements? What is the message that this minister and this government expects them to be receiving from this supplemental estimates submission?
Secondly, were any First Nations invited to be considered? When this government determined that there was a surplus, did they invite any First Nations to submit and request funding?
We know there was a feasibility study on the table of this government for the Northern First Nations Alliance, but I know there are so many other worthwhile and meaningful and important projects, apart from capacity funding. We know there’s a great challenge out there, so were there not any other First Nations, AFN-BC…?
First Nations leadership summit — I was up there ten days ago. The Minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship spoke at that conference in person, talked about the challenges of ensuring consulting about the Emergency Program Act that’s coming forward and the Mineral Tenure Act review. These are important considerations of legislation that we’re hearing are coming from this government and we have not yet seen. There are certainly needs to support First Nations as they address and consider those important pieces of land-based legislation, which is the point that the minister made — the Minister for Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.
Again to the minister: what message is this minister and this government sending to those other First Nations on these important projects and important needs for funding for surplus, if this is what the government wants to call it, that it’s making available? Why did they choose these particular nations to do this, political or otherwise? Were other nations invited to submit for access to the surplus funding?
Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question from my colleague. I have enormous respect for the member. We endeavoured, over four hours yesterday and today, to draw the line, as we must, between the supplementary estimates process, which is before us, and, of course, the opportunity that the member will have to talk about the general budget of our ministry. If the $75 million at issue today were to be approved by the Legislature, our budget would be over $750 million.
Mr. Chair, I’m sure you would realize the number of priorities facing a minister of Indigenous relations and reconciliation in the 21st century. It’s just an enormous list. The member has listed two or three priorities that he believes are important. I would agree with those priorities, but there are so many more.
It was our process…. The member may not like the process. I’ve tried my best to articulate it on at least three occasions, describing how the Minister of Finance and our ministry and all ministries worked together to deal with an unprecedented surplus situation. We were asked to identify things that we thought, in the circumscribed time frame available, could make a real difference to nations.
We chose the priorities. A choice was indeed made. We’ve applied the criteria — which I can read again into the record; I think criteria that the member does not seem to quarrel with — that would allow us to make progress in areas where First Nations have agreements underway and, by advancing the funding, could make even better progress, more accelerated progress. That’s what we’re doing.
Now, specifically in the context of the 3Nations agreement, I explained to the member and I think he acknowledges that that was signed in September of last year. It would be unreasonable to think we would have…. I think he used the term “progress reports,” at this point.
We are now in March. We haven’t had a progress report to date. We believe, however, based on the leadership of the Chiefs that I named yesterday and the work that we’re doing on the ground, that our relationship will allow the important priorities that the 3Nations regional partnership agreement is designed to address…. Enormous progress will be made going forward. That is why we were comfortable applying that of one of the six before us today.
I’m happy to speak again about each and every one of those agreements. I cannot do any more than repeat what I’ve said earlier about the nature, the sort of unusual process that we’re in today, dealing with supplementary estimates, as distinct from the main estimates process, in which we can address all the priorities and many more that the member has addressed.
The Chair: Minister, I’ll ask you to move the motion.
Hon. M. Rankin: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.