Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 7, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 284
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, information report, Fraud Risk and Financial Statements: B.C. Public Sector, Part 1, March 2023 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2023
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.
Introductions by Members
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, as you can see, the gallery is full of our wonderful hard-working firefighters from all over British Columbia. I also know that, individually, you all want to recognize them and say thank you, but that would take lots of time. So I’ll do it on behalf of all of us and say thank you to all the firefighters.
Most of you attended the ceremony yesterday recognizing fallen firefighters. We also send our sincere condolences to all the families.
Once again, on behalf of each and every member, we want to say thank you. Thank you so much for all the good work you do.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have two introductions today. The first is from the Automotive Retailers Association, an organization which has been around since 1951 and has helped shape the automotive industry that we know today in British Columbia. They do absolutely incredible work. With us will be Adrian Scovell, their president; Ron Tremblay, their chair; board members Scott Waddle, Rick Hatswell, Wade Bartok, Mitchell Martin and Nairn McKenna.
Would the House please make them most welcome.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Today we have attending, from the Housing Ministry, staff from the corporate management services branch. I want to recognize Lindsey Hilton, Lauren Delaronde, Samuel Starodub, Cassidy Steele, Jesse Cook, Whitney Fondja, Ayesha Asad, Kash Akinkuowo, Christina Craft, Karen Fishwick and Eden Landero.
I want to ask the House to please make them really welcome today.
F. Donnelly: Members of the First Nations Fisheries Council are in the House today. Joining us are President Hugh Braker; board members Stu Barnes, Gord Sterritt and John Henderson; and staff members Jordan Point and Astrid Niemann-Zajac.
Would the House please join me and make them feel very welcome.
Hon. J. Osborne: I rise today to recognize Hydrogen B.C. and their leadership, who are helping us move towards a robust, made-in-B.C. hydrogen economy. Here with us in the gallery today are Matthew Klippenstein, Pranav Chandrasekar, Alan Young, Andrea Engelen, Colin Armstrong, Leah Michalopulos, Leanne Sharpe, Grace Quan, Charlie Ker, Bob Blattler, Cora Moffat, John Quinn and Scott Williams.
As I hope all members know, Hydrogen B.C. is the province’s foremost association of hydrogen producers, innovators and industry-adjacent companies. They are the regional branch of the Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association here in British Columbia.
Our province is home to over half of Canada’s hydrogen and fuel cell companies and half of the nation’s research investment, represented in large part by Hydrogen B.C. They and their members champion B.C.’s hydrogen and fuel cell sector, which is capturing investment and leveraging the largest hydrogen cluster in the country. I look forward to meeting with them and the Premier later today.
Will the House please help me to make them feel most welcome here today.
A. Olsen: As all the members in the House know, our constituency assistants or advocates, however we refer to them, help us do our work while we are in the building here and, as well, support us when we’re doing our work in the constituency.
Somewhere amongst all of the firefighters in the gallery is Jake Rees. Jake spent the better part of a year working in the Saanich North and the Islands constituency office before heading off to the University of Victoria last September.
I want to raise my hands in gratitude for all of the work that Jake did on behalf of the constituents of Saanich North and the Islands and ask the members here to please make him feel very welcome today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: A moment ago I introduced the Automotive Retailers Association. One of their partners that they work with in government is RoadSafetyBC. With us today in the gallery, and who will be meeting with the Automotive Retailers Association, are the policy analysts from RoadSafetyBC. They are Lisa King, Jeff Cui, Tara Zala, Kristine Chan, Lesley Valour and senior policy manager Jeff McConnell.
Would the House please make them most welcome.
Hon. L. Popham: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to welcome my brother Guy McKintuck to the Legislature. I know you said we weren’t allowed to introduce firefighters, but he just happens to be the fire chief for Delta.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — PAY TRANSPARENCY ACT
Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pay Transparency Act.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce the Pay Transparency Act. This bill will address systemic discrimination in the workplace by requiring employers to enhance transparency in their pay practices and by prohibiting employer conduct that contributes to the gender pay gap.
B.C.’s gender pay gap was 17 percent in 2022, the second-highest gap, after Alberta. We know that pay gaps are even higher for Indigenous, racialized and newcomer women, and the pay gap lightly affects people all along the gender continuum, including non-binary, transgender and two-spirit people.
Everyone deserves to be paid fairly. This bill will shine a light on the gender pay gap by requiring mid- and large-sized employers in B.C. to post pay transparency reports. These reports will reveal gaps in wages and bonus pay.
These reports will do more than show the difference in pay just between men and women. Pay transparency reports will use the province’s new gender and sex data standard and our forthcoming anti-racism data standard to reveal pay gaps between men, women and non-binary people at intersectional levels. The requirement to post pay transparency reports will be phased in over four years, based on advice we heard from B.C. employers and leading best practices.
The B.C. Public Service and our largest Crown corporations will lead the way and will start to report their pay gaps this November. By 2026, all public, private and non-profit sector employers in B.C. with 50 or more employees will be required to publicly report their pay gaps. By shining a light on their pay gaps, we will incentivize employers across the province to take concrete steps to reduce unequal pay.
This bill will also prohibit other practices known to contribute to the gender pay gap. As of November 1, 2023, all employers in B.C. will be required to include pay or pay ranges on their public job postings. This leading practice has been implemented by our neighbours in Washington and California and many other jurisdictions in the United States. B.C. will be one of the first Canadian provinces to take this important step to tackle our pay gap.
Employers will also no longer be permitted to ask job applicants for their pay history when negotiating salaries or to punish employees who disclose what they earn to their co-workers. These practices can perpetrate the pay gap and need to stop if we truly want to address pay discrimination in B.C.
In developing this legislation, we have been attentive to the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Our assessment shows that this legislation is consistent with many articles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. As a result, we have consulted broadly with First Nations and Indigenous partners to seek their input and perspectives.
These measures will pave the way for more transparency on pay practices by B.C. employers. They will empower employees in seeking fair compensation, and they will reward B.C. employers who, in our global economy and tight labour market, will become leaders in fair and equitable pay practices.
Our government is already making progress in narrowing the pay gap through our investment in training, education and child care and through our increases to the minimum wage. The Pay Transparency Act is another critical tool that will continue our commitment to support a strong, sustainable economy that works for everyone.
Mr. Speaker: Members, this is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 13, Pay Transparency Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M213 — INDIGENOUS NAMES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
D. Clovechok presented a bill intituled Indigenous Names Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.
D. Clovechok: I move that the bill entitled Indigenous Names Statutes Amendment Act, on which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.
Let me begin by saying that this is the second time I’ve introduced this bill and remind members that it was inspired by a young woman, a student from Golden, B.C., Emme Abs.
This bill deals with truth and reconciliation and the reclamation of Indigenous names for residential school survivors, Sixties Scoop survivors and their families, and the use of these traditional names on all government documents. Indigenous people were stripped of their traditional names by the residential school system.
This bill directly responds to one of the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These traditional names carry deep cultural meaning. Yet for many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people, residential schools robbed them of these sacred names. Some names define, traditionally, who the person is, and for some, names are generational — hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. Many times they are based upon sacred stories or events. They have deep meaning. They matter.
Many Indigenous names use characters, numbers and symbols which are not easy to replicate and, as such, have not been able to be used on official government documents. Indigenous applicants have been told by government that current software won’t tolerate special characteristics. Yet given the government’s ongoing spending, in terms of the money that’s going out right now, one would think that there would be some cash to develop the needed software.
I was so pleased to see the Solicitor General last week, and rightfully so, confirm that Ukrainian refugees would be enabled to use their own language in testing for drivers’ licences. Yet this government continues to ignore the need for change regarding the use of First Nations language names on government documents.
I have said this before. In all trails of life, there is one that matters the most, and that is the trail of a true human being. To be on this trail requires not only truth but action that, in this case, would reconcile the wrong found inside this truth.
The government has the resources to make this happen. It’s time to do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
D. Clovechok: The question is the first reading of the bill. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M213, Indigenous Names Statute 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)
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE
ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY
KELOWNA STUDENTS
R. Merrifield: On February 23, after a tight competition with a close decision, the 2023 Sustainable Development Challenge in Kelowna has declared a winner. Each year, this program allows students to work alongside community organizations and non-profits to devise a plan to embark on a more sustainable future. This competition promotes their innovation and ideas, allowing these ideas, artwork and solutions to be showcased to the community.
The students choose an environmental issue that they’re passionate about and work to address problems and provide solutions for all of our future. During the event, the top six teams were selected to present their plan to a live judging panel and audience, and I’ve heard from the students that the mayor was the most intimidating. The teams were scored then out of a score of 20, using a rubric sheet. After hearing all six pitches, the judges combined their scores and determined the team’s rankings.
This year, I am pleased to announce that both the second- and first-place-winning teams were from my riding. The second-place-winning team, Life Garden 2023 from Immaculata High School, received $2,000 for their project, and their partner organizations secured a donor to match funds raised.
First place went to Project Mini Forest of Willowstone Academy, with a win of $5,000, which will go towards implementing the plans proposed in their pitch as well as a sustainable development challenge trophy. The Willowstone Academy team was the youngest team to enter, and these grade 7 to 9s were actually competing against those that were in early university.
They were absolutely ecstatic with the win. “We still can’t believe that we won,” they said. “We are super excited to plant trees and help improve our community’s biodiversity crisis,” they said.
On the winning team were Saina Seghal, Allia Moore, Ivanna Barba, Chanel Jarrard, Gracyn Veldhoen, Katherine Krieger and their teacher, Jamie Stevens. The mentorship and expertise advice they received throughout the process enables them to learn, grow and develop, and we look forward to next year’s event.
ZIMBABWE CULTURAL SOCIETY
J. Sims: Dr. Lawrence Chidzambwa, a constituent of mine, and I met last week to see how his community could be supported. Lawrence, who works with patients living with HIV/AIDS in the Downtown Eastside area, is a director with the Zimbabwe Cultural Society of B.C.
This organization began as a social and cultural group where Zimbabweans could come together to share their experiences living in B.C. with people who speak the same language, enjoy similar foods and share the same celebrations.
The needs of the community were greater than a cultural group could provide, and the Zimbabwe Cultural Society pivoted to become more service-oriented. ZICUSO B.C. now runs culturally appropriate programs to provide support for families in their new country. They offer seniors and youth programs, teach technology to newcomers and run a food security program. As the food program has grown, it now provides culturally familiar food to over 600 people and 11 different East and South African countries. Dr. Lawrence and his team of volunteers also work in partnership with diversity to support refugee groups throughout Surrey.
Like many of the African and Caribbean immigrants in B.C., those from Zimbabwe have found a strong community. We are so fortunate to live in a province with such a mosaic of cultures. Starting a new life in a new country is challenging. Luckily, there are Canadians like Dr. Lawrence Chidzambwa, who remember what it was like to be new and who are willing to share their time helping newcomers settle in.
To Dr. Chidzambwa and his whole team of volunteers, I want to thank them on behalf of all of us for welcoming new Canadians.
PIONEER LOG HOMES
L. Doerkson: They’ve become affectionately known as the “Timber Kings” in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Pioneer Log Homes of B.C. was established by Bryan Reid Sr. in 1973. A natural place to open his new business that was central to British Columbia was Williams Lake, an area that was lush with top-notch spruce, Douglas fir and western red cedar.
As Pioneer Log Homes grew, so did the family support. Several members joined Pioneer Log Homes, including Bryan’s son, Bryan Reid Jr., and his son, Bryan Reid III, a.k.a. Little Man. Bryan Reid Jr. spent many years training under his father to become a master craftsman and has since taken over the family business.
In addition to family members, Pioneer Log Homes of B.C. has been fortunate to have several members from outside of the family join the team. Pioneer artisans include Martin Kalin and Brad Grant, both heading up the Sugar Cane division. Sam Petersen heads up the Soda Creek division of Pioneer Log Homes. Additionally, their elite design team is led by Roy Keats. Gary Crosina and Aleesha Mousseau, in the sales department, look after each client as if they were building homes for their own families. That is the type of service Pioneer’s customers have come to expect.
For decades, Pioneer Log Homes has become one of the most state-of-the-art, high-quality hand-crafted log building companies in the world. They have set extremely high standards with the custom log home industry and are continually searching for new ways to improve all of their products. Pioneer Log Homes is often referred to as a world leader in this industry.
Along with everyone in Cariboo Chilcotin, I would hope that this House will join me today in congratulating the Timber Kings and Pioneer Log Homes of B.C. on 50 proud years of building log homes for the world.
Happy 50th anniversary, Pioneer Log Homes.
RICHMOND WOMEN’S RESOURCE CENTRE
K. Greene: Since 1976, the Richmond Women’s Resource Centre has provided care and support for women in Richmond. They operate on four key pillars: empowerment, support through education, safe space and social justice.
Welcoming to women of all ages and backgrounds, RWRC offers basic English writing skills, individualized computer training, English conversation lessons, healthy food skills for families, creative writing for teens, women in leadership speaker series and a work-ready program.
RWRC can’t do all this great work alone. That’s why they hosted their signature fundraiser this past Saturday. Their event recognized International Women’s Day, which honours the courageous women who demanded to be counted as full and complete persons and wouldn’t take no for an answer. Women’s rights have come so far, but there are still miles and miles left on this road, and the work of RWRC will help us on the journey.
I’d like to thank the RWRC board, which is Tammi Belfer, who is president of the board; and directors Jenny Mak, Li Qing Wang, Shayla Feldstein, Marielle Demorest, Casey Skuse, Jackson Kemmis, Dr. Navdeep Dhillon and Traci Corr. The board is supported by great staff and volunteers, including Kelly Sidhu, who is manager of programs and community partnerships; Jasmine Law, marketing and administrative support navigator; and special event executive Susan Ness.
Richmond Women’s Resource Centre event was also supported by generous sponsors and volunteers that contributed to making their event a big success. RWRC is rightly proud of having a safe and welcoming space for women in Richmond. From peer support groups, like grandmother’s support group, to work-ready computer skills, RWRC is supporting women to overcome barriers and reach their full potential.
A rising tide lifts all boats, and I want to thank Richmond Women’s Resource Centre for the work that they do lifting up women, which helps our Richmond community be better for everyone.
BUDDHIST DELEGATION
AND CEREMONY AT
LEGISLATURE
T. Wat: I rise in the House today to celebrate Buddhist culture in British Columbia. The first Buddhist temple in Canada was built at the Ishikawa Hotel in Vancouver in 1905, a trail-blazing achievement, no doubt. Today there are more than 90,000 British Columbians, in all corners of the province, who self-identify as Buddhist.
On February 27, I was honoured to welcome a delegation of Buddhist masters and followers from across B.C. to the Legislature for a special Buddhist dharma blessing and offering ceremony. The delegation included more than 100 visitors from Chinese, Tibetan, Sri Lankan, Burmese, Thai, Vietnamese and Japanese traditions. It was a beautiful ceremony, and I thank the delegation for sharing Buddhist teachings of kindness and compassion with all MLAs in attendance.
One of the most beautiful moments, however, was the bipartisanship on display, as our visitors received the warmest of welcomes from all members who gathered together for this special event.
The B.C. Legislature opening its doors to the largest delegation of Buddhist monks, nuns and masters was a significant milestone in the people’s House and truly a sign of the diversity and inclusion of our province.
I remain hopeful that Buddhists in British Columbia will get a day to celebrate their culture and illuminate our deeply diverse cultural mosaic.
WATERSHEDS
F. Donnelly: Water is life. Everyone needs clean water. Water is essential for our food security. Wild salmon need cold, clean, abundant flows, but watersheds in B.C. face many challenges, including a rapidly changing climate which requires new management to help ensure they remain healthy.
Recently I attended the Healthy Watersheds Initiative symposium in Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh territories, where dozens of water leaders gathered to learn, share and strategize. Anne Haira, New Zealand’s deputy secretary of climate change for the Ministry of Environment, spoke about the Te Ao Māori and how water is managed in New Zealand, a place where rivers enjoy the rights of a person.
Norm Allard Jr. of the Lower Kootenay Band spoke of the importance of restoring wetlands.
Tara Marsden spoke of advancing UNDRIP in B.C. and of rights, title and reconciliation in watershed work.
Roger William, chief of the Xeni Gwet’in, spoke of the importance of water to his people, the land and the animals in his territory.
I, along with Lori Halls, Deputy Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, spoke about the future of B.C.’s watersheds. Later that evening the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. hosted an incredible celebratory dinner to recognize the work of watershed security leaders across B.C.
We must support these watershed leaders if we are to turn the tide to resilient watersheds and abundant salmon runs. It’s why our government is investing $100 million in healthy watersheds and launched the engagement of a new, co-developed watershed security strategy intentions paper to ensure that safe, clean, abundant water is available to communities, nations and wildlife across B.C. for generations to come.
B.C.’s. watersheds are the lifeblood of this province, and we need to work together to ensure that they stay that way.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT
OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN
COMMUNITIES
K. Falcon: There is a massive disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from the Premier and the terrible results we see when it comes to crime and social disorder.
In a ten-hour span over the weekend, four people were stabbed in separate incidents in Vancouver, resulting in one man dying and three others suffering serious stab wounds, four unrelated incidents of random violence and violent stabbings within a ten-hour period.
This explosion of violence began under the Premier’s watch while he was the soft-on-crime Attorney General for 5½ years, and it continues to devastate communities around this province.
My question to the Premier is: when will the Premier end his catch-and-release system and prioritize the right of victims to feel safe in their communities over the right of violent repeat offenders to be released back into the community?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I point out to the member that the police do an incredible job. The Prosecution Service does an incredible job in this province.
All of us on this side of the House take these issues incredibly seriously. That’s why Budget 2023 has a record $462 million in new funding for programs: to assist police in the difficult job that they’re doing to deal with the prevention issues, to deal with justice issues, to deal with keeping our streets safe.
That’s why that money is in this budget. That’s why, for example, we put in place the additional funding for 911: to assist people when they have to call for help from the police, when they have to call for situations that are challenging. Domestic violence, for example.
What does the opposition do? Every single one of them stands up and votes against it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Minister will continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hang on, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members, both sides.
The minister has the floor.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The Leader of the Opposition just said he cares about results. Well, a $150 million investment to upgrade 911 service will bring greater results than voting against it.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is…. We agree that police do a great job. The problem is the NDP aren’t doing their job. That’s the problem.
You would almost forget that this is a government in their second term, six years into government. They still haven’t figured out that announcing more money doesn’t actually improve results unless you roll up your sleeves and get the job done.
The reality is that people no longer feel safe. We have witnessed no improvement in the violence on our streets.
On Valentine’s Day, the horrific reality hit home in Richmond when a woman was found lying unconscious on a sidewalk. The police only realized that she was a victim of crime when another woman came forward with a similar report of an attack. The second victim was attacked by a violent repeat offender on the same day, walking on the same street in the same location as the first woman.
After six years of NDP government, our streets are the most unsafe they have ever been. Things are getting worse, not better.
When is this Premier going to put the rights of victims ahead of repeat offenders and keep our British Columbia citizens safe in their own communities?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.
Once again, I’ll tell him…. We take this issue extremely seriously. That’s why we have made investments in the resources and the initiatives that police have asked for. That’s why we have put in place a provincial witness security program, something that they did not do. It resulted in more than 419 charges, 134 murder charges and convictions. They could have done it, but they failed.
That’s why we’ve committed more than $230 million to hire RCMP officers to assist rural communities, small communities, integrate the change right across this province. They didn’t do that. We’ve done that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition mentions victims. I want to talk about victims. I want to talk about the support that this government has given to victims.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, let me just give you….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Let me just give you, hon. Speaker….
When that member sat on this side of the House…. What we saw between 2009 and 2017 was a reduction in services to victims. A reduction. That shows how much they cared about victims.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Since 2018, we have given a 70 percent increase in funding for victim services.
They failed every single time.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, both sides. Let’s have a question and then an answer, please. Let’s not interrupt each other, both sides. Okay?
M. de Jong: It’s gratifying, actually, to hear the minister at last refer to victims. Regrettably, the numbers of victims are piling up under this government.
Every day we seem to hear about another tragic story of a victim at the hands of a prolific violent offender. What we continue to get from the Premier and the government are denial and excuses, denial about the magnitude of the problem.
Ernesto Malgapo is a violent prolific offender. He has got over 100 separate court files. He offends, he’s briefly detained, and he’s brought before the courts. He’s released, and he reoffends. He was brought in in December. By Valentine’s Day in February, he’s back on the streets, reoffending, and women in Richmond are the victims of another violent attack.
For all of the rhetoric, for all of the excuses, for all of the denial, the problem has gotten worse and worse, and it is the result of a purposeful catch-and-release public policy. When is this Premier prepared to admit that his approach to this has been wrong, that victims have suffered as a result, and when will he change his catch-and-release…?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair really appreciates that when the question was asked, nobody interrupted the member. Let’s do the same thing, and now let’s hear the answer.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I will remind that member that, as a lawyer, he knows that we have an independent judiciary. He knows that we have an independent Prosecution Service. He knows that the Criminal….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Gee, it didn’t take long, hon. Speaker, for them to ignore your admonition.
Mr. Speaker: Please continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member knows the Criminal Code of Canada is a federal responsibility. That’s not buck-passing. That’s a fact. It’s something that they seem to be not wanting to deal with.
Once again, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates why he will always be the Leader of the Opposition and never sit on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. It’s okay, Members. That’s okay. It’s okay, Members. Calm down.
Members, please. Members will calm down.
The minister will continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to the issues that are caused by changes that were made to the Criminal Code, we have been really clear on this side of the House that we think there are unintended consequences, and they need to be changed. The federal government has indicated that they agree with us.
I can tell you that both the Attorney General and myself will be in Ottawa at the end of this week to discuss potential changes with the federal Justice Minister — changes that we want to see happen to make our streets safer, to deal with some of the unintended consequences that came out of Bill C-75.
Because we know that British Columbians deserve to be safe in their communities, we are doing everything we can, and will continue to do everything we can, to make sure that they are.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.
M. de Jong: Over a year ago, we urged this government to take specific steps within their authority to address this problem that they are largely responsible for. We urged action under the Crown Counsel Act. We urged other steps, and all we got were excuses, denial.
Now, the Premier likes to talk about 100 days. You know what people are talking about? It’s 2,000 days of inaction by this Premier, when it comes to public safety.
The destruction and the violence of repeat prolific offenders…. The victims are piling up. We have first responders in this chamber today who see the results of repeat offenders and the victims that they leave behind.
It’s not working. The approach this government has taken is not working. The continued denial of the result that they have taken is not working for anyone. Catch and release does not work to keep people safe. People in communities across British Columbia do not feel safe.
What this Premier needs to do is to stand up in this House, acknowledge that his approach has failed, and tell British Columbians he is going to take the steps necessary to keep them safe from repeat violent offenders.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I want to make it clear that all of us on this side of the House take this issue very seriously, and the Attorney General does as well.
That’s why the Attorney General and I myself, as I said, are going to Ottawa to deal with issues around the Criminal Code, with the federal Justice Minister, issues that impact every single province in this country and that every Justice Minister and Solicitor General has told the federal government they need to address. British Columbia has been acknowledged as a leader in that area.
Provincially we have put in initiatives that are based on what the police are telling us they need to see happen — the experts on the ground, like the first responders in the gallery, the experts who do the job day in, day out.
This is why, when they said, “You know what? We need a witness protection program,” we put that in. This is why, when identified, that we worked with local government — they said there were gaps in terms of rural policing — and that it’s this side of the House that funded $230 million to put those 270 officers in communities right across the province. It’s why we put in place special teams to deal with repeat offenders.
Those initiatives were taken by this government. We will take our advice from the experts, the police on the ground and the communities on the ground. When it comes to victims, we will not take advice from that side of the House. When they sat on this side of the House, they cut victim services, over ten years, by 4 percent. We’ve increased them. We take the public seriously, and we’re going to continue to do that.
SALT SPRING ISLAND
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES AND
RESOURCES FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
A. Olsen: Today I’m going to do something a little different than what normally happens in here for the 30 minutes of question period.
I had the honour of hosting the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General last Friday to Salt Spring Island. We had the opportunity to meet with some of the first responders on the island. I just want to say that in the follow-up from that meeting on Friday, my constituents on Salt Spring are very happy for the open and honest dialogue that the Minister of Public Safety had.
We met with the RCMP detachment sergeant, Clive Seabrook, whose community-minded policing is very welcome and well received by the islanders. We met for lunch with the fire chief, Jamie Holmes. I’m grateful to the cook and fire volunteer, Mysha Dewar-McClelland, for the delicious chili, cornbread and salad that was served to us.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please continue.
A. Olsen: I’d like to know what it was that he heard from my community on Salt Spring with respect to public safety and their needs.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It was an interesting discussion we had with the residents of Salt Spring Island, who brought forward a number of suggestions — on how much they value their local detachment and on how much they believe in relationship-building.
They identified some of the challenges small communities such as his, and I know in other parts of the province, have to deal with, where officers come into a community and they’re only there for a short time. Particularly when you’re dealing with communities that have Aboriginal communities, that relationship is so absolutely critical.
They asked me if there is a way in which we can ensure that police in communities like his — and indeed, in other communities — don’t just do two or three years but have the ability to stay longer.
I said, “Yeah, you know what? That’s something that I know is a problem. It’s something that the committee on police reform identified as a problem,” and I said: “It is something I intend to take up with the federal minister on that.” That’s one of the things that we heard, and I thought it was a very valuable discussion. So I thank the member for arranging that meeting.
Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.
A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the role of question period is to hold government accountable, but it’s also, I think, the role of this House to be constructive. I think that when we have first responders who are here today, who put their lives on the line for our constituents, day in and day out, it’s important that they can see that we have both the role of accountability, which they’re seeing, and also the role of being constructive.
We heard a range of issues, as the minister pointed out, many of them. In fact, Salt Spring Islanders are looking forward to a meeting with the Minister of Transportation, because many of the issues over there are about roads, road quality, road maintenance, the much-desired cycling lanes on Fulford-Ganges, specifically.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.
A. Olsen: Yes, I know. I’m getting to the question, Members. I’m getting to the question. There were….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please. Nobody interrupts.
A. Olsen: There were specific questions, to the minister, raised by the fire service on Salt Spring. They’re in the process of building a new fire hall. I think that all of the members here that have served in volunteer fire and paid fire services know the value of their fire halls, and they also know the value of their communications.
To the Minister of Public Safety: what role can the provincial government play in supporting Salt Spring Island with the construction of their new fire hall and their new communication services?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question, because one of the great things about this meeting was to learn firsthand some of the challenges that his community — and other communities, I have no doubt — face. One of them is the construction around that new fire hall and the issues and the challenges that they’re facing over financing. I have committed to the member that I would be speaking with my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance in terms of how….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Please continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I heard the comments across the way, and I’d just like to remind the member that — you know what? — when members do ask a question, they do get an answer. Just like when the….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Such as when the member for Kootenay East rose last week and asked a question about driver’s licensing in the Ukrainian language. I told him that we would deal with it. And, hon. Speaker, as I told him yesterday — and I’ll tell the rest of his colleagues — that issue is going to be dealt with and be completed by the 27th of March.
In answer to the member’s question, I have committed to getting those answers, and I will do just that.
SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE
T. Halford: After that interlude, maybe we can actually get back to question period and holding this government to account on their failed, failed policies.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
T. Halford: Now, we all know that Surrey is the fastest-growing city in British Columbia, and I think we all are starting to know that this NDP budget has absolutely failed the citizens of Surrey.
Six years ago this NDP government campaigned on a promise. They campaigned on many broken promises, but let’s talk about one specific promise. That promise was to eliminate all portables in Surrey. Here’s a quote from the leader of the NDP: “We have to have a total removal of all these portables over the course of the next four years.” We agree. Guess what. Six years, and we have more portables in Surrey than ever before.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
T. Halford: In fact, 10 percent more portables than when that leader made that quote.
My question — it’s a simple one — is to the Premier. How could he fail, and miss so badly, on a campaign commitment to eliminate portables in Surrey?
Hon. R. Singh: Mr. Speaker, it’s my first time ever standing up for question period. I would really like to thank the member for the question. I am really honoured at what our government has done since 2017. We have made education a key priority. We have made investments. This is an investment that I’m very proud of, not just as an Education Minister but as a parent as well.
This year’s budget, as well, is historic for the K-to-12 sector. We are putting, I would say, an amount I’m so proud of, $8 billion, into the K-to-12 sector. This is a commitment that we took on since 2017. We have invested in more than 60 schools since 2017. I can talk about Surrey as well, which the member has raised. Since 2017, we have put $475 million in capital projects, which has created more than 10,000 seats, putting our students out of portables and into new, expanded schools, which they deserve.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.
PATTULLO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
T. Halford: What’s historic is the absolute failure by this NDP government. When it comes to portables, they campaigned to eliminate them and have zero. We actually have more than ever, 10 percent more than when they made the commitment.
Results matter. It’s a fact that this NDP government continues to fail when it comes to matching Surrey’s rapid growth.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
T. Halford: One of the things they first did…. We talk about the Massey Tunnel. Scrap the Massey replacement bridge, $100 million gone.
Then what do they do? They delay the Pattullo Bridge and reduce its scope. They stuck Surrey taxpayers, because of their community rip-off agreements. To add insult to injury, they’re going to replace a four-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge.
I think some members may know this, but when they originally did the Pattullo Bridge, four lanes, 15,000 people resided in the city of Surrey. In years to come, there are going to be 900,000 people in the city of Surrey.
My question is a simple one to the minister of state of infrastructure and transit. They are failing so spectacularly on this bridge replacement. Why don’t they do the right thing and make this bridge a six-lane bridge already and get it done?
Hon. D. Coulter: Yes, thank you to the member opposite for the question. I’m more than happy to talk about what we’re doing in Surrey when it comes to transportation, and south of the Fraser in general.
The Leader of the Opposition just made a zero. Let’s talk about zero tolls on the Port Mann Bridge.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Thank you.
Hon. D. Coulter: A regressive tax on the hardworking citizens of Surrey and south of the Fraser.
Let’s talk about the Surrey-to-Langley SkyTrain.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Hon. D. Coulter: We’re building a major piece of infrastructure south of the Fraser for the people of Surrey and Langley, a piece of infrastructure that the opposition never even talked about during their reign.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Coulter: It’s true. How many times did they reference SkyTrain? Zero. How many times did they reference a subway? Zero. How many times did they reference rapid bus? Zero.
So please, please, again make the zero sign.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. D. Coulter: Have them make the zero sign, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll talk about zeros.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Well, Members. Members. It’s good to see both sides are smiling, at least.
BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
HEALTH CARE IN
SURREY
E. Sturko: Once again, the NDP are all talk, no action.
Interjection.
E. Sturko: They sure do.
The reality is that the NDP just don’t know how to get their projects done for the city of Surrey.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Members.
Please continue.
E. Sturko: They’re failing spectacularly on health care as well. Not only is the promised….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh. Members.
E. Sturko: Not only is the promised second medical school already years behind schedule, but there was no money in the budget for it. Another zero. My goodness.
As if that that wasn’t bad enough, the Surrey Board of Trade released a report revealing how woefully inadequate health care is in Surrey. Anita Huberman says: “If you have a heart attack, a stroke, trauma, need specialty services for your child, you need to go to another hospital across the bridge.” Yes, that would be the four-lane Pattullo Bridge that you would have to get over.
The new so-called hospital doesn’t even have a maternity ward — zero maternity ward, which is ridiculous in the fastest-growing city in British Columbia.
My question to the Premier is: why is the Premier abandoning the residents of Surrey by offering them absolutely nothing new in terms of health care in this budget?
Hon. A. Dix: We’re building a second hospital in Surrey.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members. Let’s have the courtesy to listen, please. Please. Thank you.
Continue.
Hon. A. Dix: The Leader of the Opposition is bringing his usual insightful thought into this debate.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: It’s okay. Shhh. Members.
Order, Members. Members, please.
Hon. A. Dix: The person who sold the land, the person who stopped the second Surrey hospital being built, after he promised it — the person who failed the people of Surrey, who doesn’t represent them anymore — that person shouldn’t be talking about hospital care in Surrey. We build the hospital; he sells the land.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. A. Dix: In 2008, there was a proposal from the Fraser Health Authority and SFU…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. A. Dix: …to build a second medical school in Surrey. Who was against it? He was against it. Now, the medical school and the hospital that he stopped — he’s complaining about it.
We are building a second medical school; we’re building a second hospital. Here’s what else we’re doing. Here’s what else we’re doing.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member. A question was asked. Now let’s conclude, please.
Minister, please conclude.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I could go on. I could go on.
The Liberal government failed the people of Surrey on health care more than any other government in the history of B.C. We are delivering for the people of Surrey with UPCCs, adding diagnostic care, adding surgeries, adding a second hospital, adding a second medical school. We are delivering to the people of Surrey.
[End of question period.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh. Members.
Members, I really….
Members, what is this? You know, we are mature, grown-up people. The question was asked; the question was answered. It’s the end of the question period. Stop it now.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia’s report Fraud Risk and Financial Statements: B.C. Public Sector, Part 1.
J. Routledge: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
J. Routledge: Joining us today for the first time are leaders of the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union. Please join me in giving Eric McNeely, Jennifer Seper, Paula White and Dan Kimmerly a warm welcome.
F. Donnelly: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Donnelly: Members of the Coquitlam Fire and Rescue, IAFF 1782, are in the House today. Joining us are Steve Piccolo, Steve Farina, Chris Bond, Keegan Gordon and Gary Sehn. I’d like to acknowledge the work of these brave firefighters, which they do every day to keep our community safe. Will the House please join me in thanking them.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the Chair advised everybody at the beginning that we will make a general introduction, which we did, to welcome all firefighters, so that we don’t have to redo it again and again.
Okay, thank you so much.
Reports from Committees
MERIT COMMISSIONER
APPOINTMENT
COMMITTEE
M. Starchuk: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner, a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of the Clerk.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
M. Starchuk: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.
M. Starchuk: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I’d like to make some brief comments.
Starting in June of last year, the committee carried out a comprehensive recruitment process. We’ve received and carefully evaluated many qualified applications and concluded our work with the unanimous recommendation that David McCoy be appointed as British Columbia’s next Merit Commissioner.
All committee members appreciated David McCoy’s extensive experience in B.C.’s public sector human resources processes, his attention to outcomes and his knowledge of the work and commitment of the Office of the Merit Commissioner.
We are confident he has the experience, abilities and qualities to provide effective leadership to the important, non-partisan, independent position of the Merit Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, David is in the gallery today. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming and congratulating him on his new role.
On behalf of all members of the House, I would like to express our appreciation to Maureen Baird for her service to British Columbians as Merit Commissioner from January 2020 to January 2023 and as acting commissioner since January 13 of this year.
I also want to extend my sincere gratitude to the Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, and all the committee members for their thoughtful advice and commitment throughout this appointment process. Those committee members were from North Vancouver–Seymour, Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and Richmond North Centre.
And a big thank-you to those staff, Kate, Jenn and Suzie, for the guidance that they provided to the committee in coming forward with this decision.
M. Morris: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale pretty much summed everything up here very well. It was an extended process. I too would like to extend our appreciation to the Clerk’s office for their guidance and assistance during this extended process; and for the patience of all the committee members, as well, as we negotiated our way through some extraneous circumstances here.
I think the outcome speaks for itself. I’d just like to compliment everybody on the committee for a job well done.
Mr. Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Motions Without Notice
APPOINTMENT OF
MERIT COMMISSIONER
M. Starchuk: I ask leave of the House to move a motion recommending that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoint David McCoy as Merit Commissioner for the province of British Columbia.
Leave granted.
M. Starchuk: I move:
[That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that David McCoy be appointed as an Officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Merit Commissioner for the province of British Columbia pursuant to section 5.01 of the Public Service Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 385) for a term of three years commencing on March 10, 2023.]
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: I call in the main House continued debate on Motion 17, which is in my name on the order paper.
In Committee A, I call continued debate on supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Government Motions on Notice
MOTION 17 — ADDICTIONS CARE
(continued)
B. D’Eith: I rise to speak in favour of Motion 17. We’re asking all members of the House to support the all-party committee’s unanimous recommendations in the Closing Gaps, Reducing Barriers work; in affirming support for the spectrum of addictions care, including life-saving harm reduction measures such as safe consumption sites, decriminalization and safer supply; and a rapid, unprecedented expansion of drug treatment and recovery spaces.
Now, of course, we all know that the toxic drug crisis is unprecedented at this time. It’s a public health emergency that’s touched the lives of people all over B.C. Overdose deaths are impacting our families, our friends, our neighbors, and all members of this House know that we need to redouble our efforts to save lives and get people the help they need to beat addiction. We know there’s more to do, and we won’t stop working until we turn the tide on this crisis.
It was wonderful to see members from across all parties in this House come together in this committee to make important recommendations across the spectrum of addiction care. There were 118 presenters and 881 written submissions. It was a big step to see all-party support for 37 recommendations to fight the toxic drug crisis, including evidence-based policies of safer supply and decriminalization.
Of course, every member came from different parts of British Columbia, which is really important, and came together with a consensus. Ultimately, this work is a work of solidarity, and it impacts all British Columbians.
Now, some of the key themes. I can’t go through all of the report, but some of the key themes are an overarching government response; a call for the comprehensive continuum of care that we need; of course, prevention and education, urgently expanding in-school prevention and education programs; harm reduction — for example, access to naloxone kits and including overdose prevention and drug-checking services; treatment and recovery — substantial increases in publicly funded, evidence-based and accredited treatment, recovery beds and outpatient services; safer supply, including access to prescribed safer supply; enforcement and decriminalization; and the support for successful implementation of decriminalization and putting mechanisms in to review the success of these programs.
Of course, looking at this all with a youthful lens as well.
The members of the committee supported all these measures, including harm reduction, decriminalization, safer supply and increased treatment and recovery. In fact, British Columbia is a leader in Canada in the response to the toxic drug crisis. We’re using more tools than any other place in Canada. We’ve been carrying out much of this work starting in 2017.
Prior to the pandemic, the measures that we were taking as a government were creating a marked decrease in the overdose deaths. Now we have to continue to build the system of care that we began building, the four pillars of harm reduction: treatment and recovery, prevention, and education and enforcement.
Of course, our government is making historic investments in mental health and addiction services across the full spectrum of treatment and recovery. In fact, in Budget 2023, there’s $1 billion over three years. That’s unprecedented. And $586 million of that is for treatment and recovery, so an incredible commitment to treatment and recovery.
Now, in my area of Maple Ridge and Mission, there’s been a lot of work done. I’m really pleased that we have a Foundry in Maple Ridge, which deals with youth mental health and addictions. We’ve seen some incredible results from that work. We hear from folks who work at the Foundry that young people are…. It’s nearly 400 times more efficient in getting them the help they need than otherwise. It’s really wonderful to have that program.
I just went recently to two new youth treatment beds at the Maple Ridge Treatment Centre, which is administered by Fraser Health. We recently announced eight complex care beds in Maple Ridge, and we have over 100 supportive housing beds. Complex care is important because this has added wraparound services for psychiatric and mental health supports, primary care service, overdose prevention, occupational therapy and Indigenous support workers, all wrapped around the person. The beauty of the complex care program is that it’s not just a place; it follows the person.
Another really important work we’re doing on the prevention side is the ICY work, which puts services in schools. That was actually piloted in Maple Ridge. We recently announced the expansion of that program into Mission.
This is happening right across the province. Opening over 360 adult and youth treatment beds — we’ve doubled youth treatment beds. In the new budget, we’re committed to 100 more publicly funded beds, 42 new and expanded overdose prevention sites, expanded access to safer supply, expanded access to mental health supports through community counselling, the ICY teams I just talked about and, of course, implementing the decriminalization of people who are using drugs.
Also on the side of enforcement, there are 270 new provincial police officers being added to help prevent the money laundering and organized crime that fuels the toxic drug crisis. Also, adding new car programs, giving supports for mental health in the cars that police officers and front-line workers are having to do on the street. Of course, the Peer Assisted Care Teams are being expanded.
There’s also funding for the Tailgate Toolkit to help those working in construction access harm reduction services. We know that a lot of people who are suffering from addiction and, unfortunately, succumbing to overdose are often men aged 35 to 50 working and using alone. So these are important.
Also, the Premier announced a new model of seamless care, which is going to roll out through St. Paul’s, and $171 million in Indigenous treatment.
The point is that the work of the committee was ongoing. We’re ramping this up to support the entire spectrum of support that’s needed: harm reduction, treatment, prevention and enforcement.
As far as decriminalization, this is a really important step that B.C. is taking with the federal government. The whole point of this is to recognize that addiction shouldn’t be treated as a criminal matter but as a public health matter. Criminalization actually drives people to hide their drugs, to use alone and to not seek help.
As I mentioned earlier, a lot of men, particularly, are using alone. We need to deal with the stigma attached to that. Of course, there’s the increased toxicity of drugs. For people using alone, it’s deadly for them.
Decriminalizing small quantities of drugs will help fight the shame and, also, fight the stigma around addictions and break down the barriers that we need to, to save lives. This is about saving lives.
This is something that was launched recently. Of course, it was launched after spending many, many months implementing, training police, working with health authorities, connecting with people in the community, making sure there’s public education before it was rolled out. It is a new program. It’s going to take time to come to its fruition.
Like many of the other tools in the toolbox, this is an important program. So it was very concerning this week, after so much support between all the parties, that the opposition seems to have done a 180 on this. I’m not sure what is driving this. We did see, for example, their friend from the federal Conservative Party come and talk about it.
I’m not sure what’s driving this 180-degree turn on decriminalization. This should be a non-partisan issue. I don’t know why the opposition has decided to change their tune on this.
P. Milobar: I’m happy to rise and speak to the motion that has been presented. To be clear, I think it is important that we have these open conversations.
We just heard from the last speaker from the government. Frankly, what politicizes an issue is when you hear the characterizations that the government continually tries to push towards what our party and our members have been saying around decriminalization, around safe supports, around the use of addictive substances and around the need and importance of proper treatment options.
Our focus has been very much heavily weighted, and we make no apologies for that, towards the treatment option side of the equation. For years now, we have heard about this four-pillar approach. We have heard about harm reduction. We’ve heard about ensuring that there’s proper enforcement. But there’s also the treatment side. That is what….
We’ve watched the opioid crisis balloon and explode over the last six years that this government has been in office. I don’t say that because this government necessarily created the opioid crisis. We saw that starting to develop in the final days while we were still in government as well. In fact, we saw that, across North America, starting to develop. If you look at the timeline, that’s just the cold reality of it. The other cold reality of the situation is…. Over that six years, we’ve watched deaths spike.
As the previous member said, and I agree, it’s people using alone. It’s people hiding the fact that they have a substance issue. They are predominantly the ones dying, predominantly younger males in a lot of professions where it’s usually a work-related injury or something of that sort that has led to painkillers being prescribed of one sort or another. That prescription and that treatment start to phase out, and the next thing you know they’re seeking out their pain relief in other ways, which are much more dangerous.
The problem is that this government, over the last six years, has not taken meaningful steps to ramp up access to treatment, access to recovery, access for people and their families to try to gain that access easily so that a person that does feel the shame of use and is trying to hide it feels that that treatment option is actually a true option for them to access, feels that that option is not going to bankrupt their family, if they try to have that hard conversation with their family about the need for them to get into treatment.
As much as this government and the previous speaker want to talk about what’s in this budget, let’s look at what’s not in this budget. We very clearly laid out a billion-and-a-half-dollar Better is Possible plan that was heavily, heavily weighted on treatment, to try to get people the supports and the help they need to get on a road to recovery, to gain back the meaningful parts of their life so they’re not just fixated on where their next fix will come from. That’s what our plan has been built around.
What we see in this budget, unfortunately, and what we hear in the discussion around this motion is not that from government. That’s disappointing for us. That’s disappointing because it’s yet another missed opportunity with this budget that could have been embraced by this government. Saying that a plan has 190 treatment beds potentially being built over a three-year lifespan of a budget, with no identifiable dollars put towards those 190 beds, in the capital sense, in the three-year plan that’s been presented simply isn’t good enough.
It pays lip service to something that is literally life and death, like access to treatment in a timely fashion. That is why our Better is Possible plan contained no cost barriers to access that treatment. Let me repeat. No cost barriers. When the member before me speaks about treating this as a medical issue, that’s exactly what our plan is trying to do: treat it like a medical issue.
If you break your arm, there’s no cost barrier in British Columbia to go get your arm fixed. I’m not for a moment trying to suggest that trying to heal from addictions is anywhere near as easy as fixing a broken arm — just before the government starts trying to misconstrue other statements, as they’ve been doing all week.
The point is, if you’re treating it as a health care issue, as speaker after speaker from the government repeatedly talks about, then it should be funded as the same. We have private treatment beds right now sitting empty in facilities on a daily basis in British Columbia because people can’t afford to access those beds, but there are no public spaces open. It’s reprehensible that this government, for all of their talk, flat out rejects the notion of subsidizing those beds in a surge capacity way, when all of the other public facilities are full, to get someone into that treatment. That is not in this budget.
What is in this budget is actually a reference of 29.3 days as the average wait time to seek out treatment in British Columbia. That’s not good enough. The government in this budget, to bring forward a plan around this issue of decrim and treatment….
Did they bring in a new benchmark with this budget, that they would like to see that 29 days get cut in half, down to 15 days? That still wouldn’t be good enough but still be better. No, they removed all measurables for access to treatment benchmarking in this budget, moving forward. We now no longer know what this government would consider even a moderate success for access to treatment when it comes to addictions. That’s simply not good enough.
The member opposite says that we’ve done a 180, as an opposition, around decrim. We haven’t.
What we have said is we’ve been very clear about this government’s lack of action leading up to the implementation of decriminalization, the letter of requirements from the federal government that spells out exactly what work this government was supposed to do that they simply have not done. When they talk about us politicizing this…. Any time we ask a question, it seems we’re politicizing, especially if it’s a question about their performance.
We ask very direct questions about things in the letter of requirements that were not done by this government ahead of decriminalization coming into British Columbia, as they promised the federal government they would do, and we’re politicizing things. It seems like a very convenient way for this government to deflect away from having to take any responsibility for their lack of action, their lack of follow-through and their lack of actual commitment to things that they told the federal government they were agreeing to do.
We don’t have the data set, the baseline data, this government was supposed to collect over the last 12 months leading up to decriminalization, because they didn’t do the work. How can you judge whether a three-year pilot has been successful or not if you don’t know what your baseline is that you started with?
With this government, when we bring forward stories from the real world — what’s really happening on the sidewalks in our communities — they spin and deflect and say: “Oh, that’s not really happening.” We just heard it in question period, about violent prolific offenders — denials from this government.
They will go off and find some random data set to defend their position. They’re the only ones that will use that data set to defend that position, but that’s what they will do. You can always find a data set somewhere.
The letter of requirements was very clear. This government was supposed to spend the 12 months creating baselines so that when decrim came in as a three-year pilot, as a three-year trial for the rest of the country, frankly, to pay attention to what was going on or not…. Would we turn into Portland, or would we get the results the government is hoping we get? That’s what a baseline data set was supposed to provide us — something to measure against.
When we ask serious questions in this House that are literally life and death for people with addictions challenges, we get told we’re politicizing it. The government doesn’t want to actually acknowledge that they have failed on their commitments — not just to the federal government but to the population of British Columbia.
When we see lip service paid to something as important as recovery and the timelines of access to recovery…. I don’t think anyone who has dealt with a loved one going through addictions issues has to be a recovery expert out there to understand that a 29.3-day wait for access to addictions treatment just doesn’t work.
Somebody comes to their parents and says: “Mom and Dad, I have an issue. I was injured on the job. Remember all those medications I got? Well, those prescriptions ran out. I’ve been self-medicating on stuff that I get off the street. I don’t want to keep doing that. I need to get off of that.”
Then the mom and the dad and the son or the daughter try to access treatment. They start going through all the hoops, and they’re told: “So 29½ days from now, you’ll be in treatment.” What are the odds that that person, 29½ days later, is going to say: “You know what I said a month ago? Yeah, I still agree. Today is the day I go in”? Some do. Most don’t. We all know that.
It’s a hard truth for the government to hear. I know. I appreciate that, but it doesn’t make it less true. It doesn’t make it politicized. It makes it what actually happens in the real world.
When I go for a tour in Kamloops with the RCMP and other caseworkers and parents to tour dugouts in our riverbank where underage girls get summoned to go turn tricks to fuel their drug habit and get toured through some of the other horrible shacks that this happens in…. The police’s hands are tied. That 14-year-old can’t be compelled to go get treatment. That 14-year-old doesn’t have to listen to their parents. That 14-year-old, even though we can see the look in the eye, defends the person that’s turning them out on the street. The parent has no standing. It’s gut-wrenching. It’s not politicized. That’s the real world.
Then you have the conversation with the parent and the sibling. They tell you about the three or four other times, a moment of clarity that young girl had, where she did want treatment. She did want access to recovery, and she wanted to have that while she was separated from the people that are trafficking her. And they get told it’s a 29-day wait for that treatment? That’s a failure on this government’s part to act, plain and simple.
When this government doesn’t want to embrace recovery in a meaningful way and, instead, puts up speaker after speaker after speaker on a motion like this to try to focus strictly on decrim, that says it all. They try to spin why we’re bringing forward questions and concerns about their failures on this file as politicizing. That says it all. Frankly, that says they’re more worried about their own political narratives, which they have spent decades spinning, than they are about meaningfully accelerating access to treatment and recovery for people in British Columbia. That is, actually, what they should be doing.
We’re not saying you can’t be doing all the other stuff. We haven’t voted against that. Our plan was very clear. Those were pieces of our Better is Possible plan as well. But to say that wanting a focus on recovery, a focus on trying to heal people, trying to make people feel like they have their purpose again in life and interacting with their families…. To think that’s wrong and to characterize how this government is characterizing it is just flat out not acceptable.
We’re opposition MLAs. We’re used to being criticized by government. We can handle it.
I dare these same government members to look into the eyes of the parents that I toured around Kamloops with and characterize things the same way to them that they characterize what we’re saying and doing. I guarantee none of them will have the temerity to do that. Suddenly they all doublespeak about all these extra treatment spaces coming in. Timeline to be determined. Locations to be determined. Capital funding to be determined. Staffing to be determined.
That’s actually what’s in the budget. In fact, in the budget…. The one area that they’ve been talking about for the better part of two years now, complex care…. When they talk about that in this budget, which does, again, tie into this overall piece that we’re talking about….
In one strange moment of clarity, at least, of forthrightness by this government, they actually acknowledge, in black and white, in their budget…. Obviously, it got by the editors, the way this government has been operating. It actually says that as the complex care beds are being physically built, they will be built without any staff in the near future. We’re going to have more beds sitting empty for people to be cared for.
These ones are actually publicly funded beds that people won’t have access to. That is the problem. Six-plus people a day dying should be enough of an indication to this government that what is currently happening is not working well enough. They can cite COVID. They can cite all these other factors. Other jurisdictions have dealt with that, and other jurisdictions have seen the curve bending much more significantly than anything we’ve seen in British Columbia. Those jurisdictions have started to rely heavily on treatment and recovery, where cost is not a barrier.
That was the whole premise of MSP coming in, in the first place — of medical, free universal health care coming in, in the first place. Now, back when it first started, it was still things like broken legs and other things like that. It didn’t put a family into bankruptcy for basic medical treatment. Over time, governments of all political stripes in this country have agreed on that fundamental right and have added and added what is actually covered under universal health care. I think everyone agrees on that.
I know the Minister of Health and previous Ministers of Health sometimes have to make tough decisions of what qualifies or doesn’t qualify. The governments have to make that based on technological advances and everything else like that.
With treatment and recovery, that’s not what we’re talking about, though. We’re talking about a government whose ideological makeup is one that doesn’t believe strongly in recovery and treatment, which is why six years have been spent on harm reduction and a “safer supply” and decriminalization. If the same amount of effort for the last six years by this government had been put into treatment and recovery options at the same time, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in right now, with people waiting over 29½ days.
It seems to me that the group of people that are objecting to things being discussed on this topic is actually the government as it pertains to recovery and treatment. They’ve had six years. They’ve had seven budgets, two Premiers, three Finance Ministers, three Mental Health and Addictions Ministers, no meaningful advancement on the numbers of treatment.
They will cite new beds. What they won’t tell you is net new. They won’t talk about the centres they closed down while building a new one. They’ll talk about 20 beds here or 18 beds there or 26 beds there. They won’t talk about the 18 or 19 that got closed down or defunded by this government at the same time.
They won’t talk about the need this government feels to bring everything into the health authorities, which, when we talk about all things health care, has been a disaster over the last six years. They don’t want to acknowledge and figure out how to work with the existing private treatment centres. Now, if those private treatment centers need some other form of accreditation or things of that nature — we haven’t heard that from this government — then take those steps.
They’ve gone out of their way to regulate engineers. They’ve gone out of their way. Look at Bill 36 to regulate all sorts of things. They’ve spent six years not dealing with the addictions and treatment area in a meaningful way.
It gets a little tiring when you hear continually that we’ve suddenly done a 180 or that, as opposition, we’re actually doing our jobs in questioning the government, critiquing the government, and trying to find where things could be made better, or not, by this government. Ultimately, that’s what we need to see. That’s what the opposition is supposed to do. If the government starts to feel uncomfortable because of the questions we’re asking, you just have to ask yourself: what does that feel like in your own family dynamic?
I know that when I was a teenager and my parents started questioning me a little too much, and they weren’t buying the answers I was giving, I started to get a little more internally nervous that maybe they weren’t buying what I was selling to them that week, because I didn’t want to get in heck for something that happened at school. I think that probably has happened to all of us.
That’s what this government reacts like when they get asked questions. When they get asked to defend their policy choices, when they get asked to defend their spending priorities, and lack thereof, they get very defensive, and they use very defensive language about it.
When we reviewed, when the public reviewed, when the media reviewed, but most importantly, when people that are in the space of recovery and treatment, when people that have accessed recovery and treatment with their own lived experience have looked at our Better is Possible plan…. There were a lot of people validating it, because it was meaningful. It was legitimate. It was viewed as being well-thought-out, well structured and would actually have a positive impact on things.
We haven’t heard any of that type of language about what the NDP government has proposed in this budget — none. We’ve heard a few things around dollar figures of spending. I think some of these groups are optimistic that it means there’ll be a bit more money into the system that hasn’t been in there before. But as we’ve seen, with anything from health care to crime and safety, to affordability, to housing, to addictions, more money with this government doesn’t mean a better result. In fact, it has been meaning the exact opposite, budget after budget.
It’s the seventh budget where we’ve heard “historic, unprecedented” — the seventh in a row, yet ever-worsening results in all of those areas I’ve just touched on. With this motion…. It’s interesting the government would want to bring this motion forward, first off, instead of regular legislation, like we would normally be dealing with, but that’s okay. This is a very important topic to talk about for British Columbians, but it’s disappointing to hear government member after government member trying to characterize it.
If you go back and listen and look at their comments…. To my point about recovery and treatment, those are very lightly referenced and rarely talked about in their speeches, because they just simply don’t believe in it. If the government doesn’t believe in it, no wonder they get ever-worsening results when they just keep pouring money into the same programs.
There’s no one steering the ship. It’s the third Mental Health and Addictions Minister we’re on under this government, ever-worsening results under each and every one of them. The one constant has been the Health Minister, who actually overarches them, especially when you look at the budget. Let’s be real. If the Health Minister doesn’t approve it, there’s not a whole lot of money going on, other than for staffing, in the Mental Health and Addictions portfolio.
There is nothing wrong…. In fact, the opposition has been encouraging, imploring the government. We released our Better Is Possible plan for that very reason, so the government could see that better is possible and the government might actually embrace recovery and treatment like we have.
That’s not what they’ve done. Their budget hasn’t done it. Their speeches on this motion certainly haven’t done it. I don’t know why — after six years of waiting, with ever-increasing death and carnage around us — we think something different is going to change simply because they’ve added more money in a budget, while saying all the same language around it, at the same time, that they have for the last six years, while failing to do the most basic requirement before decrim came into effect, which was to actually collect data. It’s so we know what a baseline is to start from, so we know whether, three years down the road with decrim, things have actually gotten better or not in British Columbia, what data sets to point to.
People that full on don’t want any form of decrim are going to need convincing in three years that it actually worked. If you don’t have baseline data, it’s going to make that work that much harder. That’s 100 percent on this government’s shoulders that they did nothing about getting that data set ready over the last 12 months.
They agreed to it. They told the federal government they would do it. They just then ignored doing it. As we’ve seen with a great many things with this government, they actually don’t want a measurable. They don’t want to tell us what they consider a success or a failure in a program.
How do you re-evaluate if a program is working or not on a wide range of issues if your government, if you, don’t even know what your endpoint is trying to achieve? Their endpoint seems to be seeing how many dollars they can put in any particular program and call it a day.
People in the here and the now in British Columbia want results. Most importantly, on this topic, they want free and open access to recovery and treatment options that simply do not exist in British Columbia and are nowhere on the horizon based on this budget. That’s why this motion and the government’s words on it are so disappointing.
G. Kyllo: It’s extremely concerning what we’re seeing happen in this chamber today, specifically with this particular motion that’s up before us. A record number of British Columbians continue to die from the opioid crisis. Six individuals a day — daughters, sons, uncles, aunts, mothers, fathers — and what we have seen from this government is a proclivity to just throw more money at a growing problem. There is a need for immediacy, as my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson shared with this House.
Those that are struggling with addiction challenges need to have immediate access to care. There are treatment beds available in the province today. I know of a specific facility that has 40 beds. Of those 40 beds, ten are publicly funded. There are only an additional ten beds that are only currently being utilized on a fee-per-pay basis.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
There are 20 beds that are available. Treatment beds that are available in this one facility, 20 alone. This government has the opportunity to provide funding for additional beds tomorrow. But what do we hear from this Finance Minister? That we’re going to continue to build more infrastructure — in the minister’s words, “brick by brick, board by board.”
British Columbians need support now. Six people a day are dying, and there’s no focus on this government to provide the treatment that’s necessary. I think the challenge for this government is to try and explain to British Columbians why they’re continuing to wait and to delay the opportunity for treatment beds and provide a path for individuals with addictions to get on the path to recovery and to get off of drugs when beds are available today.
Noting the hour, I reserve my opportunity to speak again and adjourn debate.
G. Kyllo moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:15 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning. I call Committee of Supply Section A to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
On Vote 40(S): ministry operations, $1,495,000,000 (continued).
D. Ashton: I would like to pass it along to my peer from the Green Party. We can let him go first.
A. Olsen: To the minister: congratulations on your new post.
Just a question with respect to…. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, for the most part of a decade or longer, has been advocating for fiscal reform, top to bottom. What we have here is a one-time benefit that I don’t think any mayor and council are going to reject or complain about publicly. In fact, they’ll be very happy to get it. However, it further adds to the systemic issues that they’re facing, which is that they have to balance their budgets every single year.
Has the minister considered taking a similar model to the one that has been today, which now that we’re debating $1 billion, and making it available to municipalities on an annual basis so that they can fund the unfunded priorities that the provincial and federal governments don’t fund through their granting programs?
Hon. A. Kang: Thank you for the question. The local government finance resilience review is still progressing between my ministry and members of the UBCM. Your question to the $1 billion fund — it is a one-time fund, but they have five years to use it. So local governments will be able to use the allocations of money for the years to come.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the minister noting that the process with the Union of B.C. Municipalities is ongoing. It’s a project that I think started more than a decade ago, and there has been an incredible reluctance, I think, on behalf of the provincial government, the previous government and the current government, to actually reform the fiscal framework for local governments.
What we see are celebrations happening on social media this weekend about the largest single investment in municipalities. This is a one-time gift, unfettered cash, when regularly the money from grants is fettered in all sorts of ways by the provincial government. What municipalities need is something more in line with what is being contemplated today, which is a $1 billion that municipalities can spend on their priorities, rather than spending it on the priorities of the Premier or the priorities of the Finance Minister.
Would the minister consider proposing a similar model to the one that’s being proposed today, for this one-time expense, to give access to resources for municipalities of all sizes — scalable, of course, to the size of the municipality — in order to help with the regular and ongoing needs of those municipalities, that are the priorities that are set by the community members and their constituents?
Hon. A. Kang: The local finance resilience review with UBCM and the Ministry of Finance is the most recent report. It was from January of 2022. So it may not be over a decade, but we will continue to work very hard and engage with members of UBCM. This funding is one-time funding in nature.
These initiatives are anticipated to provide long-term supports and benefits to British Columbians and all 188 local governments that we have here in the borders of British Columbia. This includes initiatives to support health, affordability, reconciliation, climate, emergency preparedness and infrastructure supports for communities throughout B.C. These priorities are not just our priorities as a province but they are also the priorities of local governments.
The Chair: Member, before you continue your questions, I did want to remind you that we are on the supplementary estimates. Let’s focus on the actual supplementary estimates overall, and we’ll have a better opportunity to do the broader budget discussion.
A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that we’re talking about decisions around $1 billion of taxpayer money and a decision that was made by this minister on how it’s spent. I am canvassing that.
I think what is reflected here, in the seats on this side of the House…. I’m not going to point out any members who are or who are not here, but I would suggest that there are a considerable number of us sitting on this side of the House that were formerly on local governments. We all have been part of the process, over the last decade or more, pleading with the provincial government to reform the fiscal framework.
Those one-time gifts, the granting processes we have set in place, have not been sufficient to ensure that municipalities have been able to develop sustainable infrastructure and the sustainability of governing their municipalities. The reality is that local governments are required to balance their budgets year over year, and provincial governments are not.
My question to the minister: was it ever considered to turn this $1 billion that’s being granted, in these supplementary estimates, into a permanent fund that could be drawn down for requests made by local governments?
I use the example, in question period today, about a fire hall that doesn’t currently fit within any of the granting programs. That’s a fire hall. Just because it doesn’t fit within the government’s funding programs, it doesn’t mean that the community on Salt Spring needs a fire hall any less. Nor is it necessarily fair that the community on Salt Spring should have to cover the entire costs of their fire hall.
There’s a lack of flexibility. A permanent fund, from which local governments could request — for projects such as the fire hall, or such other projects that my colleagues here have been making decisions about — is nevertheless needed.
Was it ever considered to create a permanent fund with this that could go on in perpetuity, giving access to municipalities — all 188, as the minister mentioned — to do funds that are priorities set by the community?
The Chair: Thank you, Member. I appreciate your feedback. I do want to emphasize that we are focusing specifically, at this time, on this funding. I understand the validity of your question, which I do fully appreciate, but I do want to emphasize that we are focused specifically on this grant. Obviously, what you ask can be asked at a broader time when we’re talking about overall estimates.
A. Olsen: I just asked if there was a decision point or an option made to the minister, brought to the Finance Minister, so that rather than expending this fund as a one-time dispersion, it would be turned into a permanent fund that could be drawn down. I think that’s a legitimate question for this $1 billion expenditure.
Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much for the question. I won’t be able to speak to Treasury Board deliberation. What I can tell you is that we know this year’s surplus is unlikely to happen again, which is why we are tabling supplementary estimates right now.
Initiatives funded through the supplementary estimates are all one-time in nature to help advance the key priorities of government.
A. Olsen: I think we’re going to be having a discussion later, in a different ministry, about the watershed fund, which is set up in a similar way to the one I just described: to create some permanence with the money, the windfall that the British Columbia government has right now — the surplus, as the minister pointed out.
One final question, a similar question to the one that I asked about the municipal fund, the $1 billion. There’s $45 million of this money that’s going to libraries. Similar to local governments, libraries have been pleading, for more than a decade, for the provincial government to increase the per-capita funding.
Governments have been all too happy to advance small numbers of millions of dollars — a few million here, a few million there — to support libraries, a critical infrastructure in our communities for supporting equitable and universal access to information for our citizens. Yet sustainable funding, year over year, has not ever been given by the provincial government to meet the needs of libraries.
Was it considered by the minister, in making a recommendation to the Finance Minister — about these budget estimates that we’re talking about today, the supplementary estimates — to turn the $45 million into a sustainable fund that could help cover the costs of libraries over the long term, rather than just a short-term, one-time fix?
Hon. A. Kang: I have a strong passion for libraries as well. The province is aware of the social and economic pressures faced by communities and libraries providing services. I just wanted to clarify that the $45 million that we are providing to libraries is in addition to the $1 billion of the growing communities fund. This is a separate item.
It is also the request of the libraries…. They have made the request for over three years, so this one-time funding is equivalent to three years’ worth of library funding. I will continue to consider how we can better support libraries and continue to be in good conversations with them.
To answer part of the question, as well, this funding will be able to help address the changing demands for local services, lifelong learning and workforce skills, more accessible spaces and digital collections.
This will also help libraries adapt physical and virtual library spaces to make them safer, more inclusive and accessible; extend services developed during the pandemic — we know they were working, and people really want them to continue; build a core provincial public library collection of digital resources that people can access with their library card; and as well, strengthen the capacity of libraries to serve people, to plan for right now and for the future.
A. Olsen: Not a question. I just want to state to the minister that I recognize that the money that is being invested right now is going to be overwhelmingly accepted and that people, both in libraries and communities, will be pleased with the investment.
The point that I’m making is that when we are expending these large sums of money, we need to, I think, do them with some long-term sustainability and resilience in mind. There have been long-standing requests from both the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, as well, libraries for sustainable annual funding, not a hit of cash now and then a desert, and then it hit of cash and then a desert. We need to have sustainable funding.
That’s the point that I’m trying to make today, not that this is not going to be a welcome investment on behalf of all of those community leaders. It absolutely will be.
D. Clovechok: I appreciate the opportunity to ask you a couple of questions. They’ll be short and quick.
I know that you did a tour through the East Kootenays not too long ago, and you had the opportunity to meet with my mayors. I have two regional districts in my riding, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and the regional district of East Kootenay, which incorporates the towns of Golden and Revelstoke, and so on and so forth.
I know that you met with those mayors, and grateful that you did that. Everyone is very thrilled with the dollars that they’re going to get. It’s certainly going to help my communities.
I do have a concern, though. That concern is that, aside for a meeting with two electoral area directors, Linda Kay Wiese and Grace McGregor, in the West Kootenay or Kootenay-Boundary, you didn’t meet with the area directors in areas like I represent.
The reason I ask this question is some of these regional districts are actually bigger than the…. I’ll give you, for example, the regional area F, which is represented by an elected representative and is actually bigger than Invermere, has infrastructure from golf courses to ski hills and generates massive amounts of revenue for our area.
I’m wondering if the minister wouldn’t mind telling me why you weren’t able to meet with those area directors, because they are very important to our area, obviously, and generate wealth. Quite frankly, I’ve heard from several of them, and they’re not pleased that they didn’t get a call.
Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member across. Thank you so much for your passion and your advocacy for your community. In the five days that I was on the road, I was able to meet with 28 local governments. There are no priorities between one or the other. It was just the time constraint that I had.
The reason why I started with small communities is because I am very passionate in serving small communities and understanding their challenges. So I was there in full passion and conversation with them.
I will be visiting more communities in the days and months to come. I want to thank you so much for highlighting the importance of visiting the area directors in your community.
D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer. Then I can take it you were just too busy to meet with them, because they’re there. They didn’t get a call, and everybody else did. You met with two in Kootenay-Boundary.
I just need something more than, “I’m going to meet with them again,” which is great. I hope you do; I would appreciate that. But why was the East Kootenays kind of not recognized in that whole process?
The answer — I guess I get it — is that you only had a limited amount of time. And you have committed to meeting with those area directors down the road, if that’s what I understand. I just want that for the record.
The Chair: Members, just a reminder. That’s a bit out of the scope for supplementary estimates.
D. Clovechok: Well, it actually speaks directly to the $1 billion.
The Chair: Okay. If you can tie that back, that’d be much appreciated.
D. Clovechok: I’m going to do that in just a second.
Hon. A. Kang: The answer is yes, I will meet with your area directors. I will meet with as many local governments as possible. It is my endeavour that we work in collaboration, build rapport and build friendships.
That’s the way that I approach my ministry. I want to thank you for your questions and highlighting how important your community is, because they are very important to me as well.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I know they will be happy, and I will assure them that they weren’t overlooked. You just had a very busy schedule.
The last question I do have is…. I do have in front of me the breakdown of all of the funds that were given to the communities, not only in my riding but also in Kootenay East. It seems…. We did an allocation-per-capita breakdown. It’s kind of all over the board when you look at: this community got this much based upon population.
I’d just really be interested in the formula that you used to make those calculations, because there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme nor reason to how this place has less population but got more money than the place that had more population. I’d really like to know what formula or the process that you used to come to the decision on those dollars.
Hon. A. Kang: When we designed the growing communities fund, we wanted to make sure that we covered the full coverage of 188 local governments within British Columbia, so we looked at the equity between small communities and large communities.
Within the formula, we have a higher per capita for smaller communities, and we have a larger total sum for larger communities because we know they have a lot of infrastructure that they need to modernize. As well, we did look at differentiation based on needs. That is illustrated through the population but, as well, the population growth.
D. Ashton: Very quickly, has the one-time expenditure that the government is seeking at this point in time regarding this file been reviewed and approved by the Treasury Board? The minister — I can get an answer after, or a verbal one. That’s fine and dandy.
I know time is of the essence. I just want to say thank you to the minister. I look forward to future estimates, which we’ll do some other time. Thank you to your incredible staff for the job that they do on a continual basis, including those in the back.
Last but not least, please keep in mind the opportunities between Indigenous relations and municipalities, because of those close borders all the time, where those services that municipalities or townships have — there is an opportunity in the future. By working together, we can make a difference in everybody’s lives. Thank you very much and thank you again to the minister.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if she would like to make any closing remarks before I call for the vote.
Hon. A. Kang: I really enjoyed working with my critic and with members of the Green Party. I know that we have shared responsibility in hearing the feedback and the needs of our different communities. I know this will be an amazing journey that we all take together as we continue to see how we can further support our local governments. Thank you.
Vote 40(S): ministry operations, $1,495,000,000 — approved.
The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion.
Hon. A. Kang: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.