Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 291
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2022 | |
British Columbia Utilities Commission, annual report, 2021-22 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2023
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.
Introductions by Members
M. Dykeman: I’m thrilled to rise in the House today and welcome to the gallery and to the precinct my friend and mayor, His Worship Eric Woodward, as well as his outreach and communications director, Hossein Zadoh. They are here for a full day of meetings and over for another municipal conference.
I was wondering if the House could join me in welcoming them today.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m glad to welcome to the gallery and to the Legislature representatives of the B.C. Nurses Union and representatives of nurses from around British Columbia who are with us today: Aman Grewal, the president of the BCNU; Adriane Gear, the vice-president; Kath Kitts, the BCNU CMX. That’s pretty good.
Other nurses here: Peggy Holton, from Surrey Memorial; Val Falliardo, from B.C. Women’s Hospital; Maria Huertas, from Royal Columbian Hospital; and Antonio Ortiz, from Vancouver General Hospital.
I think all of us understand the incredible role that’s played by nurses in our health care system and also in our communities. We’re delighted to have them with us in the Legislature.
I know members from all sides of the House will wish to make them welcome.
M. Bernier: It’s my pleasure to make a couple of introductions today. Some elected officials, basically from the furthest part of British Columbia away from Victoria, have travelled all the way down here.
I want to thank some ministers they’ve met with. I know they’re trying to set up, hopefully, one or two more meetings this week.
I want to welcome to the House the chair of the Peace River regional district, Leonard Hiebert, and the deputy chair or assistant chair, Dan Rose, from the Peace River regional district as well. They have come all the way down here to Victoria.
Please welcome them to the House.
Hon. K. Conroy: I do want to welcome some guests to the gallery. First is Chris Barlow, the CAO of the city of Castlegar. With him is Maciej Habrych. He is the airport manager for the city of Castlegar. They’re coming here to meet with ministers and to do their best to make Castlegar the most accessible airport in the province.
D. Clovechok: It’s my pleasure to introduce a friend of mine in the gallery today, Tanya Marie Finley. She’s very active with the Nelson chamber, also a small business woman. Just an all round really, really great individual.
Would this House make Tanya feel very welcome.
Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s a real pleasure today to introduce two councillors who are joining us from the municipality of New Westminster, Couns. Paul Minhas and Daniel Fontaine.
Paul is a really valued business leader in our community who has been particularly very supportive of the LGBTQS+ community. He creates space for that community to come together. We’re very grateful for the work that he does.
Daniel is a neighbour. We both love our Quayside neighbourhood in New Westminster. He is very active in the minor hockey association and a volunteer for all things sport-related in our community.
They are really proud members of a city council that is leading on so many important issues in New Westminster — reconciliation, inclusion, PACT teams.
Would the House please join me in making them welcome here today.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve got three folks from the Ministry of Housing visiting today in the chamber. We’ve got Dibya Shrestha, Yashir Kajar and Starr Levesque.
I’m hoping the House can please make them really welcome today.
S. Bond: I want to join the Minister of Health in welcoming representatives of the B.C. Nurses Union here today.
One of the things that has been said about nurses is that they are the heartbeat of the health care system. We want the nurses that are here today and those around the province to know that we hear them. We hear their voices. We understand the challenges they are facing, and we are committed to working together to recognize the exceptional work that nurses in British Columbia do every single day.
We welcome them to this Legislature. I look forward to the discussions we will have later today.
T. Stone: It gives me pleasure, as well, to introduce a few guests that we have with us here today.
First off, I want to welcome Will Davis, who is here today. He’s the executive director of B.C. Adaptive Snowsports, which is headquartered in Vancouver.
I also would like to introduce two city councillors who are here from the city of New Westminster. We have Daniel Fontaine and Paul Minhas, the first non-NDP candidates actually elected in New Westminster in a very, very long time. They say that they’re having a lot of fun and enjoying the work.
I would ask that the House please make Will Davis, Daniel Fontaine and Paul Minhas very welcome to this chamber today.
Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to let all members know in the House that we have a special guest who is joining the press gallery today. Justin McElroy is in the House. It has been five years since he’s been here. He’s covering for Meera Bains. I bumped into him this morning, and I hope that we all greet him with welcoming open arms.
I just want to say, with tremendous gratitude, that his work around reporting for local government I think is absolutely outstanding.
I know that all members of the House will join me in welcoming Justin back to the chamber.
Tributes
SOUTH DELTA STORM HOCKEY TEAM
I. Paton: One year ago this week I got up to brag about South Delta minor hockey, how our U18 boys team went to Campbell River and won the provincial championships. This year the provincial championship for U18 hockey was held in Ladner. We hosted it, and my U18 South Delta Storm boys hockey team went on and won the championship for the province two years in a row.
We had teams from all over B.C. We beat up on Cloverdale, Trail, Peninsula, Williams Lake, Penticton, Cranbrook, Sea to Sky and Fort St. John.
Congratulations to former Stanley Cup winner and coach of our team, Ken Priestlay, who played for the Pittsburgh Penguins back in the day; Tony Marra; and Bennett Stoilen.
Congratulations to the South Delta Storm boys U18 hockey team for another provincial championship.
Introductions by Members
H. Sandhu: Today I have special guests in the gallery. Along with the B.C. Nurses Union executive team and incredible advocates, I do have Liana Cole. She is the regional lobby coordinator for the Thompson North Okanagan region. It is Liana’s first time in the gallery. She’s holding a role that I used to hold in that region. Liana is a practical nurse working in long-term care, and she has been working in nursing for more than ten years. She used to live in Powell River. Now she works in Vernon.
Scott Duwell is a regional B.C. Nurses Union chair, and he’s from the Thompson North Okanagan region, worked at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops and is now working at Vernon Jubilee Hospital as an ICU nurse.
Along with them, please, would the House thank all these incredible advocates from the B.C. Nurses Union for highlighting and advocating for nurses.
Would the House please join me to thank them for the work they do and make them very warmly welcomed.
S. Chandra Herbert: Well, first, I want to say happy anniversary and much love to my husband, Romi Chandra Herbert, of 23 years. Today is 23 years, so thank you.
Interjection.
S. Chandra Herbert: Well, yes, 23. I met him when I was 12.
I want to also ask the House to join me in congratulating and wishing a very happy birthday to the Minister of Agriculture.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
WESTERN HOCKEY LEAGUE PLAYOFFS
AND KAMLOOPS BLAZERS
HOCKEY TEAM
T. Stone: Well, this Friday the WHL playoffs are once again upon us, and my team, the Kamloops Blazers, will kick off round 1 of their playoff matchup against the Vancouver Giants as they and other teams across the league vie for the championship and the chance to advance to the Memorial Cup final — which, incidentally, will be held up in Kamloops from May 26 to June 4.
Now, while Kamloops is competitive on the ice, we’re competitive off the ice as well, and I note that we won the rights to host this year’s Memorial Cup over the Kelowna Rockets. My apologies for that, to my colleagues from Kelowna.
Back to the Kamloops Blazers, who had another outstanding season this year. Earlier this month, they won the B.C. division for the fourth year in a row after shellacking the Kelowna Rockets 7 to 2. Again, my sympathies to the members from Kelowna.
Back to the Blazers. Vancouver will be the first playoff foe, and no offence to the members from Vancouver, but you’re going down. Sorry to say that.
Let me tell you this. Kamloops is actually a hospitable place. We’re Canada’s tournament capital. No matter which team you cheer for, and even if your team has already been steamrolled by the Blazers this season, we will welcome you with open arms. We will welcome you. We will host you for the Memorial Cup in late May and early June, and we urge everyone to take in this exciting event.
Although I’ve spent a great deal of time here this morning poking fun at our competitors, hockey truly is a sport that brings everyone together. The playoffs are, indeed, an awesome time of the year — the ability to cheer on young athletes as they pursue their goals of greatness, even perhaps to play in the NHL one day. The coaches will no doubt have their young guns ready to perform, and how sweet it will be to once again discuss the actions and the rivalries with friends and family.
Mr. Speaker, I truly do wish all of the teams all the best in the playoffs, but especially my beloved Kamloops Blazers.
PHARMACISTS
H. Sandhu: It is an honour to rise today to talk about and pay gratitude to people who play a vital and sometimes overlooked role in our health care system. Pharmacy techs and pharmacists are an essential part of our health care system.
As we know, March is pharmacy awareness month, a time when we take the time to celebrate the contributions of pharmacists and pharmacy techs for their commitment to providing safe and effective use of medicine.
They are front-line workers who work with our doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to make sure that everyone has access to medication that they need and ensure their safety. Pharmacists and techs are trained health care professionals who have an important role in improving the health outcomes for patients.
They work with other parts of the health care team to provide patient-centred care. This often includes medication management, education and much more. The knowledge they have of their patients and their medication is vital to making sure that the patients receive the right doses and right direction while making sure that the patient is aware about potential side effects, allergies or medication interactions. When we visit a pharmacy, we know that we will be able to access their services. Pharmacists work tirelessly to make sure that they can provide great care for their patients.
During pharmacy awareness month and every day after, I want to encourage everyone in our community to take a moment to acknowledge the important work that pharmacists and their staff do and show your appreciation of their role within the health care system. We are fortunate to have many amazing pharmacies in Vernon-Monashee, and I’m forever grateful for the exceptional services they provide to people.
Happy pharmacy awareness month, and thank you for your service.
TURNING POINT RECOVERY SOCIETY
K. Kirkpatrick: Addiction is a complicated condition, and overcoming it can be equally as complex, as I learned when I met Brenda Plant, executive director of the Turning Point Recovery Society.
Turning Point is one of British Columbia’s foremost residential support recovery service providers with sites for men, women and transgender people across the Lower Mainland. There are two sites in North Vancouver, two in Richmond, one in Vancouver and a newly opened site in Squamish.
Turning Point is a non-profit organization, and their mission is to provide safe and supportive housing for those with addiction issues and help those individuals re-enter community and community-based addiction support services with the goal that they can regain their independence to reach their full potential in society.
Brenda Plant has been executive director of Turning Point since 2005, and she’s fiercely committed to making recovery a reality for those who ask for help. Brenda invited me to visit the North Vancouver women’s recovery house in my riding of West Vancouver–Capilano to explain the model. While the house looks like any other house in the neighbourhood, it’s not the same. The North Vancouver women’s recovery house is a nine-bed facility for women wanting to overcome their addictions.
Now, I do think we need to get away from the word “facilities” when we’re talking about places like Turning Point. This home feels far from that. It’s a house where you’re made to feel welcome, and you’re made to feel home. The clients typically stay for three to five months and are immersed in programming and counselling to assist with their recovery.
It can be a long path, and while clients are not always successful in their journey, Turning Point is committed to improving the health and well-being of individuals seeking help for their addiction issues.
Turning Point is a non-profit organization, and having a background in running non-profits, I have a deep understanding of the challenge for funding. It relies on generous supporters.
Please look for the Making Recovery a Reality Gala, which is their main fundraising event every year.
KING GEORGE DRAGONS BASKETBALL
TEAM AND WEST END
COMMUNITY
S. Chandra Herbert: Well something amazing happened on March 11 for the West End, and it didn’t happen in the West End. It happened in Langley. The King George Dragons, for the first time in provincial history, our double-A boys basketball team, won the provincial championship.
It’s a small but mighty team, friends. It’s a team from the smallest high school in Vancouver, and they were up against the mighty Brentwood College of Mill Bay, an independent school which has done very well over the years. But Darko Kulic, head coach, and a team of hard-working folks that never want to put themselves first, are always focused in a humble way on their community, finally, finally, won.
It’s a team made up of grades 10, 11 and 12. It’s a team of heart. Now, you’ll see them. When I say they’re humble, they’ll wash your car for you. Indeed, they do it most weekends to try and raise money so that they can compete at the level they do. But it’s a team that wouldn’t be possible without the leadership of Darko Kulic. He’s a fellow that I got to know at the West End Community Centre. He got to know the kids at the high school, started to get even further involved, all the way to becoming their head coach, and he’s been with them for over 16 years.
Friends, I want to say congratulations to the Dragons, congratulations to their parents, their teachers, their teammates, their friends, everybody who helped lift them up to achieve what, for many of them, was seeming to be the impossible. They were ranked tenth, but this season was amazing. They only lost one game.
Hon. friends, please give it up for the King George Dragons: “We are the champions, my friends. We’ll keep on fighting till the end.” I sing that because Darko hated that song for all those years that they got so close and didn’t get there, but they got there this year.
Congratulations, Champions.
MOUNT BOUCHERIE BEARS ROBOTICS TEAM
B. Stewart: I rise in the House today to congratulate the Mount Boucherie Bears Robotics team No. 8338, led by their teacher, mentor and coach, Mike Boulanger of West Kelowna, on their second-place finish at the Canadian Pacific regional qualifier in Victoria.
The Bears from Mount Boucherie are a 15-member team of eight girls and seven boys. This event is one of the largest high school–level robotics competitions in the country, with over 36 teams and 200 student competitors aged 15 to 18 taking part. Teams from as far away as Australia, Taiwan, Michigan, California and Hawaii were competing for a spot at the world championships in Houston, Texas.
The Mount Boucherie Bears overcame major adversity to make it through the qualifying rounds. The team had their flight to Victoria cancelled at the last minute due to an Island snowstorm, which many of us remember. So the parents and school administration rallied together and committed to making the 12-hour journey over the Coquihalla, then across on the ferry, just to get there in time for the competition. This gave them almost no time to reassemble and test their robot before the competition, but the team persevered and made it through to the finals.
The Bears would like to highlight the contributions and support of their school principal, Scott Sieben, as well as the local community partners, Discovery Digital Forensics, SafetyNow, CenDek Railings, Minga, West Kelowna Fire Rescue union and Summit Land Surveying. The team is grateful for their sponsorship and would have not been able to compete without their support.
Will the House please join me in congratulating the Mount Boucherie Bears Robotic Team on their impressive second-place finish.
SUMMIT ON SOCIAL ECONOMY
AND ROLE OF NON-PROFIT
SECTOR
M. Dykeman: It was an honour to travel to Paris, France, last week to be part of the panel at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s summit on Inspiration, Innovation and Inclusion: Shaping our Future with the Social and Solidarity Economy, where the OECD policy guide on legal frameworks for the social economy was released. It was a privilege to be able to share the work that our government has been doing to grow our province’s social economy and to learn about what other countries are doing in this area.
British Columbia is a leader in this area, and I am so fortunate to serve as B.C.’s Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-Profits, to advocate for non-profits within the provincial government and for the important work they do for British Columbians, as well as to look for opportunities to improve their partnership with government and to support better outcomes for people in our province.
In British Columbia, the non-profit, charitable and co-operative sectors deliver critical services to thousands of people every day and play a critical role in the province. For example, they meet essential needs around housing, mental health, food security, legal services and domestic violence. They create vibrant spaces through arts and culture, and they strengthen communities.
They encourage social inclusion through social groups, community recreation and sports, faith groups and immigration services as well as support communities through crises such as pandemic and the climate events experienced by British Columbia in the recent years, including a major heat dome, wildfires and catastrophic floods.
Thank you to the OECD for providing the opportunity to participate in this important conversation.
And thank you to all of the non-profits for the difference that you make in the lives of British Columbians. Without your dedication, support of the volunteers who work hard each day, British Columbia wouldn’t be as robust as it is and have such a diverse landscape of organizations that are there to help often the most vulnerable British Columbians.
Oral Questions
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
ACTION ON COMMUNITY
SAFETY
T. Stone: Yesterday British Columbians were horrified by the chilling images of Paul Schmidt’s fatal stabbing in Vancouver.
This senseless and deadly random attack occurred in broad daylight. It occurred outside of a Starbucks on Granville Street, a busy coffee shop that many of us in this chamber, myself included, and countless British Columbians and visitors to our province have frequented.
Paul was there with his wife and his young daughter. The images of his attack and his death are chilling, and they’re nothing short of tragic. As a father who often visits coffee shops with his wife and daughters, I’m finding it hard, on behalf of the opposition, to find words to describe what Paul’s family must now endure. The violence that’s taking place in our communities is getting worse and worse.
Random attacks, which used to be a rare occurrence in British Columbia, have sadly become all too common, almost to the point of being normalized in our province.
My question to the Premier is this. How many more lives must be shattered by this abhorrent, senseless violence before we see an end to these horrific random attacks?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. All of us share the absolute horror. Words can’t, I think, describe the feeling of just how awful what happened outside that Starbucks is and how disturbing the images are — which, sadly, have been shared on social media — and just how horrible that must be for the family, friends of the family and for the public in general.
I also want to make it clear that this is a problem that is not…. This upsurge that we have seen is not something that is unique here in British Columbia but is something we are seeing, indeed, in all parts of the country, particularly in our larger cities. I can tell you it is something that this province and other provinces are working on, on ways to be able to deal with these situations, particularly because of their random nature.
It’s why we continue to invest in supports that police have been asking for. It’s why we continue to advocate at the federal level for changes in the Criminal Code, particularly when it comes to dealing with weapons — in this case, knives — which is something this province and other provinces have been calling for.
It also means, as a government, to continue to be committed to working with local governments, local police agencies, other provinces and the federal government to come up with new, different initiatives to keep our public safe, but recognizing that on this challenge in particular, around random stranger attacks, there has not been, to date, an easy solution. Certainly, it is one that we are determined to work on to find a way to ensure that our streets and our communities are safe. No one should have to feel unsafe.
Certainly, what we saw — as the member said, quite rightly — I think has shaken all British Columbians. This government remains committed, and we will do everything we can to keep our streets safe.
Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, people don’t feel safe in British Columbia today. That’s because they aren’t safe in our communities, certainly not like they used to be. Tragedies like this require more than condolences.
The Premier promised “results that people could see and touch and feel” as a commitment towards addressing these dire public safety concerns and realities faced by British Columbians, but every single day, there’s another horrific story of brutal, random attacks and violence. What’s happening is a direct result of the policy choices of this government for the past six years. This is happening under the Premier’s watch — a Premier who was the Attorney General for five years and now is the Premier of British Columbia.
Last week, it was a series of assaults and knife-point robberies here in downtown Victoria. A man stabbed a person, and then went on to randomly rob and assault three others at knife-point in separate incidents. This brazen, random violence unfolded within five blocks in the downtown area before police, thankfully, were able to tackle the knife-wielding suspect to the ground. It’s no wonder that 79 percent of Victoria residents, in a recent survey, answered that they don’t feel safe in the downtown here.
Again, the Premier was the Attorney General for five years in this province. The Premier was, at that time, the person obviously in charge of our failing justice system, and he is now the Premier. People deserve better than the Premier’s endless cycle of catch and release.
Again, to the Premier, when will this vicious violence, these random attacks, finally end in communities across British Columbia?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I appreciate their concern around public safety. I also think it’s important we make it clear, because police have made it clear, that the challenges they face are multifaceted.
There is the issue of the random-stranger attacks, which we saw so horrifically yesterday, which leave all of us shaken. As I said, we are working as hard as we can, with law enforcement authorities and other governmental authorities, to come up with strategies to try and deal with that.
At the same time, there are other public safety issues — the member references those in his second question — where there have been considerable initiatives undertaken by this government over the last six years to deal with the challenges that we face here in British Columbia and, indeed, right across the country.
It’s why, in terms of people who have a violent past or who have committed violent offences in the past, it was this government that led the initiative to go to Ottawa and to seek changes to the Criminal Code, on reverse onus, to toughen up bail conditions so that people aren’t released when they pose a danger.
It was this government that sought as broad a definition as possible on that reverse onus, so that it includes knives, that it includes weapons, that it includes bear spray, that it even includes histories of those who have engaged with a weapon in the past. We got that commitment from the federal government that they will make those changes, and the expectation is that those changes are for this session.
It is this government that put in place initiatives in our recent budget around specific care teams designed to monitor violent offenders when they are released from a correctional facility and prior to their contact with the justice system. It is this government that expanded the car program, $87 million for additional resources for monitoring of violent offenders and giving the police additional tools. It is this government that has put in place the funding over three years to fill the provincial RCMP vacancies in small and rural communities.
We have undertaken significant initiatives, and we will do others. But the situation that we have been facing in this province and other provinces is complex, and we need to understand and recognize that. But make no mistake and no doubt. We are committed to doing everything we can to keep our communities safe.
RELEASE OF DATA ON
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING BY JUSTICE SYSTEM
M. de Jong: Well, we hear those words again today, “horrible” and “tragic.” They are all too appropriate, and we are hearing them all too frequently.
I think, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, what people are looking for from the government, from the Premier, is acknowledgment that what they are doing isn’t working. In fact, what they’re doing, in many instances, has made the situation worse.
I think people understand that there are going to be slight variations in crime rates. But the fact remains that this Premier, as Attorney General and as Premier, has presided over a steady and dramatic increase in random violence in this province, to the point where people across B.C. no longer feel safe in their neighborhoods.
We heard again here in Victoria. Noah Stinson embarks on another crime spree, robbing, stabbing — an individual who, over the past few years, has been charged with assaults, drug trafficking, resisting police. But he’s out there again, terrorizing people, despite being wanted on a warrant and despite having a weapons prohibition applied to him.
Last year, the Premier was dragged, kicking and screaming, into adopting a new approach to bail. Now, the government claims that it is tracking closely, that it is monitoring and has data relevant to the impact that change is having on public safety.
The question is a straightforward one for the Premier. Having monitored, having that data, will they release that data to the people who are desperate in this province, British Columbians who are desperate to see whether or not it is having a positive impact on improving safety in their communities?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for that important question. As everybody knows here, we’ve been taking action to improve the safety in our communities, and that does include issuing a directive to Crown counsel. That directive was set under the laws that we currently have. At the same time, we were advocating for changes to that law at the federal level.
Minister Farnworth and I met with Minister Lametti and Minister Mendicino in Ottawa, who joined ministers from across this country that were there to seek changes to the bail laws, the unintended consequences that we’ve seen when it comes to people committing acts of violence being released on our streets. I’m happy to hear they have made commitments to those changes, to make those changes as early as the spring. We’ll be watching to make sure those changes are made.
At the same time, we’ll be watching and monitoring our directives and how they’re showing up in this province. We’re using every tool in our toolkit in our justice system to improve the situation for communities across B.C.
Mr. Speaker: Just as a reminder to members, when we are mentioning the members and ministers in the House — not to be named.
M. de Jong: Again, with the greatest respect, the Attorney didn’t address the essence of my question.
The stories are endless, and that is part of the problem. In my own community, on the weekend, a prolific offender, notorious prolific offender, apprehended less than 24 hours after having been released. The police issued a statement. At the time of Mr. Fontaine’s arrest, he had just been convicted of possession of stolen property, another stolen vehicle, yet he was released back into our community not even 24 hours later.
There is story after story with, all too often, tragic endings involving innocent victims. The ministry back in January, the spokesman, said in the aftermath of the change directive — which the government, I have to say, took an awfully long time to adopt, despite having had a recommendation and support from the opposition almost a year previously: “We’re monitoring. We have data.”
The minister herself a few weeks later said: “We are monitoring. We have data.” Well, I can assure the Premier and the Attorney that British Columbians are interested to know what that data tells them, because all they see right now is a massive increase in random attacks.
We FOI’d. We believe the minister when she says there’s data that they’re monitoring, the ministry spokesman, and we FOI the material. What do we get back? A refusal. A refusal to release basic information relevant to determining whether or not safety in our communities is improving. I can’t reconcile that with a legitimate genuine effort on the part of the government to convey to British Columbians that they’re making all of the efforts necessary to improve their safety.
The question is a straightforward one. I hope the Attorney will answer it today. Having confirmed repeatedly that this information is being collated, collected, that there is a monitoring, will she undertake to this House to release that information today?
Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. The B.C. Prosecution Service is an independent body that has their own monitoring program. I’ll leave it to them to answer what data they’re able to release.
What I will say is that this government is not just taking the steps that I said about advocating to Ottawa. We’re standing up repeat offenders teams. These are teams of police officers, probation officers and Crown counsel that are working together in a way that it was in 2012, but unfortunately, that program was cut. What it saw was a 40 percent reduction in repeat offending. We’re using that as an example of us taking action to stop repeat violent offenders in our communities.
Those will be operational very soon across the province. It will be another measure that we’re taking to increase safety in our communities.
ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
AND ROLE OF NET-ZERO CONCEPT
AND CARBON OFFSETS
A. Olsen: Last fall the Premier said: “We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and meet our climate goals.” He was placating anxious new members with platitudes after he was outpaced and out-organized in the B.C. NDP leadership event.
When he announced the Cedar LNG project a couple of weeks ago, he sounded a lot like a former Premier, Christy Clark. He said: “The choice between protecting the environment and creating good jobs is a false one.”
Shortly after he announced the Cedar LNG project, the Premier announced his four-pillar energy action framework, and one of those pillars is a net-zero requirement for new fossil fuel projects. Now to the United Nations: “Net zero is entirely incompatible with continued investment in fossil fuel.”
My question is to the Premier. Can he please provide his government’s definition of net zero?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I think net zero is achieved, first and foremost, by a variety of measures that require independent and internationally accepted methods of verification.
The first measure, of course, would be to take every step possible to reduce emissions. That includes actions like our regulation to reduce methane emissions from the natural gas industry and all industry by significant amounts by 2030 and near zero by 2035.
Following that, it would be reducing the use of emission-generating sources of energy. And further to that, it may be technologies that are being developed, like carbon sequestration and storage. It may be legitimately accepted offsets that are verified and proven to take out of the atmosphere emissions that would otherwise go into it.
Mr. Speaker: Third Party House Leader, supplemental.
A. Olsen: Of course, the best way to reduce emissions is not to go about diligently creating more, which is what this NDP government is committed to doing. And now it appears that they are going to be turning to the accountants and carbon offsets and carbon credits to meet their net-zero requirements. The problem with carbon credits, of course, is that they’re just a human construct, just like the soft pillow that we rest our weary heads on at the end of the day, permitting our destructive behaviour to continue tomorrow.
Carbon credits don’t exist in nature. They are make-believe. Reports have found that corporate and government-run carbon offset programs are basically biosolids. Carbon offsets are unreliable. Government and corporations are over-accounting their actual emissions in millions of tonnes. Now the B.C. NDP is ready to use these faulty programs to justify more fossil fuel expansion. It’s worse than cognitive dissonance because this government knows much better.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Are the B.C. NDP going to bet our future on carbon offsets?
Hon. G. Heyman: The B.C. NDP, our government, is going to bet the future of British Columbia meeting its commitments to our citizens, as well as carrying out our global responsibilities to reduce emissions, through our CleanBC plan, which the Leader of the Third Party was privy to the development of when there was a confidence and supply agreement; through our Roadmap to 2030; and through a variety of very important measures that we are putting in place, that we’ve committed to put in place — whether it’s the electrification of transportation; whether it is the decarbonization of buildings and heating, whether it’s a range of supports to local governments, communities and First Nations to take action to reduce emissions; and most importantly, from our new energy action framework — exactly what I thought the Leader of the Third Party has been asking for, for months now, which is something to give life to our sectoral targets, particularly in the oil and gas sector.
What we have committed to is a regulatory cap on emissions to achieve our sectoral target for the oil and gas sector for 2030. We will be consulting with industry, with First Nations beginning in April on the shape of that cap, and then we will be introducing the regulation to accomplish the emissions to which we’ve committed.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
ACTION ON COMMUNITY
SAFETY
E. Sturko: So many of the measures that were mentioned by the Attorney General…. They only impact what happens after another person becomes a victim in British Columbia. The violence on our streets was created by the Premier’s soft-on-crime attitude as Attorney General from day one of this government.
Not only are prolific offenders released back into communities under the Premier’s catch-and-release system, but tent cities have proliferated under his watch as Housing Minister. I was proud to stand with hundreds of frustrated citizens in Nanaimo, but noticeably absent were NDP members, including the MLA for Nanaimo and the MLA for Parksville-Qualicum, who have been completely silent.
Nanaimo’s mayor, Leonard Krog, has declared that the city is at its breaking point: “Open drug use, our inability to provide appropriate housing and continuum of care, what’s referred to as catch-and-release in the court system, the failure to keep people in custody pending trial when they’re significant repeat offenders — all of this has come together. It’s a crisis.”
Local business owner Clint Smith was lucky to survive after being shot multiple times during a confrontation at an encampment. Clint sustained such severe injuries that he had to be placed on an induced coma.
My question is: how many people like Clint have to suffer before the Premier fixes the results of his policies that he caused?
Hon. N. Sharma: I think we can all agree in this House that everybody deserves to feel safe in their communities. When you hear about horrific violent acts that are happening, we all need to stand together, not only to condemn them but so people of the province can know that this government is taking action.
Not only, as I mentioned earlier, are we advocating for very badly needed Criminal Code changes to the federal government, and we’re hoping for that to happen this spring, but we have a whole series of policies under our safer communities action plan. That covers mental health supports, increased resources in policing, more investment in our Crown counsel, the repeat offenders task force.
We’re listening to community and hearing what they need, and then we’re responding. There’s no doubt we’re all reeling when we hear about these traumatic acts, but we’re taking the steps that we need to take in order to make it better.
TENT CITIES AND GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
HOMELESSNESS AND
COMMUNITY SAFETY
T. Halford: Homeless encampments and the escalation of violence and chaos in our streets has never been worse. Tent cities are more prevalent than they ever have been before, and that is under this Premier’s watch.
Mayor Leonard Krog says: “We’re getting to a breaking point. It’s a crisis. I’ve been calling it a crisis for a long time, but that crisis is not getting any better.” This is from a mayor. This is from somebody who sat in this House for almost two decades, most of which was as critic for the Attorney General. He understands what this government can and, more importantly, is not doing to keep his city safe.
My question is to the Premier. How much longer will communities have to suffer from the crisis called by his failed policies?
Hon. R. Kahlon: We canvassed encampments at great length yesterday. Again, I’ll reiterate the comments I made, which are that the encampments are not safe for the people living in them, and they’re not safe for the community at large.
We know, and we’ve been working actively with communities to deal with some of the encampments in ways that work for communities, for themselves. We highlighted on Sunday the plans we have for Vancouver. We’ve been working actively with the city of Nanaimo to build the housing that we know is needed, desperately needed. I believe just over 800 units of affordable housing have already been built there, and we’ve got 556 that are underway. That work is happening.
We’ve also offered and are working with them on funding for a navigation centre so those that need help can go to one place and get all the supports that they need. We had two locations that we had found, worked with them on, that went through the process. Then council came to the conclusion that perhaps that wasn’t the right site.
We found a location, went through the complete process, and council decided it wasn’t the right site. We went through another process. They found…. We’re now looking for a third site. It’s going to require us to work together to find locations for these people to be able to get the supports they need. That’s the work we’re doing with them right now.
S. Bond: Well, the reality in British Columbia is that under this Premier’s watch, homelessness, encampments and public safety have all gotten worse. This has been the former Attorney General and now the Premier’s responsibility for years, not months or weeks but for years, and the results just keep getting worse.
Almost three years ago the Premier’s mandate letter, as Housing Minister, tasked him with implementing a strategy to address homeless encampments, but he simply didn’t do his job.
According to the Premier’s transition binder, the NDP cabinet approved a plan in 2021, but it was never implemented or released. The note goes on to give this advice to the Premier of British Columbia: “Encampments are increasing in complexity and numbers across the province and are not a suitable form of shelter. People deserve safe homes and stability.”
With results getting worse every single day, why did the Premier delay releasing the desperately needed provincial strategy that his cabinet approved years ago?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to highlight that the challenge we’re dealing with, encampments, is not just a B.C. problem. It’s not just a Canada problem. This is an issue we’re seeing across North America.
Recently the Canadian Human Rights Commission wrote a report on how encampments can be dealt with in communities around the country. I’ve spoken to colleagues across the country. We’re all grappling on how we can deal with this. If you look just down south to Washington State, if you look down to Oregon, if you look down to California, every community is dealing with this challenge and trying to find ways.
How we’re dealing with this are examples I shared yesterday around the Downtown Eastside. We had 200 people in an encampment. We found housing for 90 of those people. We have 70 more people there, and we have shelter space available for them. My message to them continues to be that there is shelter space available. The encampments, with the fires, with the increase in crime we’re seeing there…. The shelters are a safer place to be.
That’s the work we’re doing not only in Vancouver but in communities around the province, working with mayors to find solutions. I know that all of the members in this House want to find solutions for those that are the most vulnerable in our society.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. N. Sharma: I have the honour to present the 2022 annual report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board, and I have the honour to present the British Columbia Utilities Commission annual report for 2021-22.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1).
Then in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Education and Child Care.
In Committee C, I call the Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2023
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:01 a.m.
The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2023, and I’ll invite the minister to introduce staff.
Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to introduce Fisnik Preniqi. He’s the executive director of the Treasury Board staff.
We look forward to the questions from the member.
On clause 1.
P. Milobar: Just a pre-emptive…. Obviously, it’s only three, four clauses. I really only have a couple of questions around clause 3.
Clauses 1 and 2 approved.
On clause 3.
P. Milobar: And just again…. I mean, this is literally the bill to keep the doors of government open over the next quarter as we work through the estimates and the main budget itself.
I guess the question I have for the minister, though, is…. On clause 1, it’s very clearly a quarter of the amount specified within the main estimates. In clause 2, it’s a third of the total amount of schedule B and schedule C. But in clause 3, it’s just…. Well, not just. But it’s $1.6 billion. But there’s no percentage calculation from the consolidated revenue fund that leads us to the $1.6 billion.
Could we just maybe get clarification on how, in this clause, it’s just a flat dollar figure with no actual corresponding calculation to arrive at that?
Hon. K. Conroy: It’s traditional to request 100 percent of the revenue transfers, as these are collected by government, and then they’re flowed to other entities.
Clauses 3 and 4 approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. K. Conroy: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:04 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2023
Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2023, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 15.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 15 — VITAL STATISTICS
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:07 a.m.
On clause 1.
The Chair: We are dealing with Bill 15, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2023.
[The bells were rung.]
Hon. A. Dix: Again. There’s always a bell somewhere. I’ll just let the bells finish in the background.
I just wanted to introduce and thank all the members of the committee and introduce, to my left, Katherine Thiessen-Wale and to my right, Jack Shewchuk of the Ministry of Health, who will be assisting with our deliberations.
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to walk through some questions with the minister. As I laid out for him yesterday, I really just want to walk through the mechanics, have a good understanding of what is happening as we move this initiative from policy to legislation. The minister has always been…. We have spent a lot of hours together, sometimes not quite enough, apparently, on some bills, when there are over 600 clauses. But I digress. This one only has two.
I’d like to begin with just a few general questions, just to get a sense of the thinking behind creating legislation. Could the minister just explain for us why moving from policy changes which were announced some time ago to an amendment of the Vital Statistics Act…. What motivated that?
Hon. A. Dix: I think, first of all, a number of people who are interested in this area wanted it to be in legislation, not just a policy change. Secondly, this is going to be a policy change that we’ve decided and we’re going forward to. It should reflect the legislation.
That’s why we’re making that particular minor amendment, to ensure that essentially the policy and the law come together and that the Legislature has an opportunity in this case to review that and give its support for that.
I think it had support in the community. There has been, obviously, consultation.
It makes sense. If you want to move quickly with a policy change, that’s good. Also, having legislation in place makes it clear for everyone and gives all members of the Legislature a chance to give their support or not.
A. Olsen: I want to just make a couple of very brief comments about this bill. The pace yesterday was much quicker than I was able to keep up with. So I didn’t get a chance to say what I felt needed to be said, from the perspective of the Third Party, with respect to Bill 15.
I want to acknowledge that the government is taking these steps to move policy into legislation, as the minister just noted, in making these two important changes — first, that sex is no longer required to be on a birth certificate and, second, that people over 12 no longer need confirmation from a psychologist or a doctor. These are important steps.
I think we are in the process now of expanding and being more inclusive in our society, recognizing diversity where it exists, acknowledging that and celebrating that. I raise my hands to the government for doing that.
I thank you for the opportunity to just say a few words. I’m certain my colleague is going to ask good questions on this.
With that, I’ll take my seat.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
S. Bond: Happy to have my colleague the House Leader for the Green Party say a few words. I know he’s madly running between three Houses, and it’s not an easy task.
Thank you, also, to the minister for that response.
I’m wondering if the minister could articulate for me whether there has been specific consultation with members of the transgender and non-binary communities regarding this specific amendment.
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, there were consultations. Obviously, the Ministry of Health was involved, led by the gender equity office, which is situated in the Ministry of Finance. There was exactly that kind of consultation to discuss the legislative changes.
Some of these areas are evolving areas where we want to make our society and our laws more inclusive, more reflective of that society. This was a step that had been requested. We made the change. We consulted. We’re making the change in legislation now, in order to reflect that. Obviously, if you’re making a change that involves a group of people, it’s important to talk to them.
S. Bond: Again, just from a general perspective around the amendment. If individuals have already received an amended birth certificate, will they be able to request a change to their sex designation under the amended legislation?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes.
S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister. Will the amendment of the Vital Statistics Act impact any other legislation or policies that relate to gender identity or expression?
Hon. A. Dix: Not in general. There aren’t too many add-on effects under provincial law. For example, it would be possible, using a change in birth registration and documents, to request a passport that itself doesn’t have a gender indicator. That is an expansion, having the core document reflect that.
It will enable people to have further rights and abilities, dealing with both other governments and, presumably, this government. It has value in and of itself, but it doesn’t amend anything else or imply further amendment.
S. Bond: Will there be any additional costs that are associated with implementing the amended legislation?
Hon. A. Dix: Maybe it would be useful just to take us through the process on both sides.
If we’re talking about a gender designation change for adults and minors over 12 who were born in B.C., the required documentation is an application for a change of gender. They all have application numbers.
For the people who are listening to us, it would be useful to go through…. I’ll go through, in a little detail, the whole process, take the member through the whole process.
It is a VSA 509A. Parental consent and signature are required for all minors — that’s a difference from minors over 12 and adults; proof of parentage and/or a copy of legal guardianship, if applicable in those circumstances; a copy of government-issued identification and any B.C. birth certificates issued prior.
The process is to mail documents to the VSA in Victoria, which is post office box 9657. It’s $27 for the amendment. This does not include any new birth certificates. If a new birth certificate is required, that’s $27 per certificate. The processing time, once received in the Kelowna office, is two to three weeks. However, current processing times are one week on average. They’re doing this work efficiently right now. If a birth certificate was ordered at the time of application, it’s an additional two to five business days for printing the certificate plus mail time.
All of that sort of takes you through the process involved. It is not an expansive process, but it is, obviously, an important one for the people involved. What isn’t required for that group is the physician or psychologist’s confirmation of change of gender designation form, which would be required should they be under the age of 12.
Those are the differences. I thought going through the whole process might be useful to the member and to people listening to us.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that information. Can the minister tell me how the amended Vital Statistics Act aligns with current human rights legislation in British Columbia and Canada?
Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s fair to say that these two legislative changes bring the legislation into line with human rights legislation and with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in these respects.
It may be that some group will make other challenges. Somebody, an individual or a group, will make other challenges to the Vital Statistics Act on other bases. There are other issues — which we may be discussing, in fact, in estimates with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who has spoken about some different issues — around certificates and vital statistics that are really important.
In this case, it brings us into line with them in this respect. It doesn’t answer all of the questions, probably, that people might have. I think in both cases, this is consistent with both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation and brings us into line with that in an appropriate way.
S. Bond: Yes, indeed, there are other issues related to things like certificates — land title, for example. I know that the minister knows…. We’ve brought, for example, an important private member’s bill to talk about how we make those changes as well. I think there will, obviously, be ongoing discussion about the other issues.
The minister referenced, I think, two other jurisdictions in his opening comments, or at least referred to other jurisdictions. I believe that there is a similar provision in at least Ontario and Nova Scotia.
Would the minister provide for me just what is similar or different? Are we exactly the same as other jurisdictions? If he could provide me either similarities or differences.
Hon. A. Dix: Ontario and Nova Scotia have proceeded with genderless birth certificates, which is the next section. That was the important comparison. What I’m going to do is share with the member, with assistance, a list, a jurisdictional scan of where all the jurisdictions are, which is helpful. Ontario, for example, still requires a medical certificate, on the clause we’re under, under the age of 17, in that case. This gives the…. We have the jurisdictional comparison, which will be useful to the hon. member.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I always appreciate his willingness to share information, which helps us ask more thoughtful questions and understand the legislation. I do appreciate that.
Again, as we referenced earlier, this transition to, or the addition of, a legislative amendment, meant…. The changes, I believe, came into force, from a policy perspective, in January. Can the minister tell me whether or not he anticipates whether there will need to be additional work done — from the perspective of education, training for government officials to health care workers and, obviously, members of the public — as this process moves through the stages today?
I recognize, also, that it’s actually in force, from a policy perspective. Is there any additional work? Were there lessons learned about what else we need to do to prepare people to actually administer the changes?
Hon. A. Dix: The member said January. It was January 2022. So the changes have been in place for 14 months. There were some minor technical changes required to systems, and so on, but those have essentially already been done.
We’re continuing to review it. In fact, it may be the next piece of legislation in the House, introduced by my colleague the Minister of Jobs, which deals with legislative changes and will deal with some of this. There is a working group in Citizens’ Services that works on this very question, which is very, very important to a lot of people in their engagement with government. It has been in place.
We don’t anticipate significant changes, but this obviously brings it into force and into law. That has, I think, utility with respect to the change-of-sex designation covered in this clause.
S. Bond: I want, if the minister could indulge me, just a bit more information about the fees. Obviously, there are fees attached to this, and there have been, when a person requests changes to government identification, for example.
I’m wondering if the minister considered removing the fees, just to remove potential barriers for British Columbians. What kind of discussion or thought went into the ongoing charging of fees?
Hon. A. Dix: Mr. Shewchuk, who does this work regularly and works with people regularly, does have the authority, should it be required, to waive fees. There are lines and considerations in that respect. This is not an issue that came up in the consultation. It’s something that obviously could be considered.
Obviously, the process of issuing birth certificates more broadly is an important expenditure for government. We want people to have access, and we do have the possibility, if there’s an impediment and the fee becomes an impediment, to waive that, but that hasn’t been part of this process.
S. Bond: I just want then…. When we are talking about clause 1, there is a current $27 amendment fee that is noted in the bill. Obviously, a fee will continue and will be in place if Bill 15 passes?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes.
S. Bond: I think that what I will do in regard to the other jurisdictions…. I do appreciate the chart. I think it’s really helpful. Obviously, there are a number of other jurisdictions that have moved in a similar direction, and I appreciate that information. I was going to ask a number of questions about that, but I think that the chart will suffice on that front.
I know the minister referenced this in his remarks yesterday, but I think it’s important to have it on the record again. Could he identify for us why 12 was chosen as the age at which a physician’s or psychologist’s confirmation will no longer be required? I think it’s important to recognize that the 12-year designation does not change the requirement that there must be parental, whoever the parent is that has guardianship or guardians of the minor…. That requirement for consent remains in place. So if the minister could confirm that and then just speak to the issue of why 12 years of age.
Hon. A. Dix: The first part of it is yes, the parental or guardian consent is still in place, which changes the need for a physician or psychologist. So that’s the change here.
Why was 12 chosen? I think it’s commonly considered sufficient for individuals to provide consent on their own behalf in the context of major decisions, to be entitled to notice before an action is taken that would affect them, be held responsible for the commission of an offence, have sufficient autonomy to be able to carry out certain responsibilities or activities such as employment, independent travel or applying for identification documents. So those are all things….
I will just give the member some examples, and I will be happy to share with her…. I have about nine examples where 12 was used. I won’t give all of them, but I’m happy to share the document with her.
In the case of an adoption or a name change, the consent of a minor 12 years or older is required. A court may only make a custody or supervision order regarding a child aged 12 or over if the child has provided consent. Children aged 12 and over must be provided with notice of certain actions to be taken in respect of them, including court orders for medical examinations. Proceedings in relation to an offence cannot be commenced against a child who is under the age of 12, and a child under that age cannot be found guilty of an offence.
Children aged 12 and older can be employed, subject to certain conditions — as the member well knows, these are much discussed — applicable to those aged 12 to 14. Children aged 12 and over may apply for a B.C. Services Card on their own behalf, and children 12 and older, as was noted, may travel independently on a B.C. ferry. Twelve has been used in all of these areas, so in this case, it seemed like an appropriate place to put this for the moment.
There are obviously some who would advocate that it should be less than 12 and in fact have advocated that. But this was the decision we made in proceeding with this legislation and the decision we’re asking, obviously, the House to support.
Clause 1 approved.
On clause 2.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for the discussion of clause 1.
Clause 2, obviously, is…. We’re looking at a different issue in the sense of the issuance of a birth certificate. So maybe the minister could just walk through for me and, more importantly, for the people who will either look at this transcript or pay attention to this issue, how the amendment of section 36 impacts the issuance of birth certificates, just a general overview, and then I’ll have some specific questions about the process itself.
Hon. A. Dix: To really summarize it in one sense, it allows for genderless birth certificates to be requested and provided. I’ll go through it a little, quickly, just to go through the sort of core of it.
Clause 2 repeals and replaces section 36(2)(d) of the Vital Statistics Act to allow the registrar general of the Vital Statistics Agency to issue a birth certificate without a sex designation. If an applicant for a certificate indicates in their application that a sex designation should not be displayed on the certificate, the repeal and replacement of this section is required to enable the legal issuance of birth certificates without a sex designation. So that’s why the law, in this case, is different from a policy decision, as we saw in the previous clause or section of the bill.
It’s important to do this for obvious reasons. But if you think of the principles that the government is supplying and the previous government has provided about ensuring everyone has the right to expression and, essentially, to self-determination in these matters, I think it’s important from a human rights perspective that people be allowed to do that and they have the right to do that. And that’s important.
It’s also consistent, I think, with the ideas of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of human rights legislation and others to allow people this ability to make this decision in their own respect. So those are the reasons for it, which we discussed at second reading. And they’re important reasons.
This is why we’ve chosen to amend, in this way, this section of the Vital Statistics Act with clause 2. And I think it’s a change that, obviously, people have requested, and I think it’s a positive change, which people will be able to use should they wish.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. Is the minister at all concerned about the kind of reaction that people may get making that choice to not include a designated sex on a birth certificate? Is the minister concerned about reaction, particularly things like discrimination, stigma, those kinds of things?
What kind of information or support will be available — resources — to make sure that people have the ability to make that decision without facing discrimination or the stigma that may come with that decision?
Hon. A. Dix: I think one place where we may see some challenges is in other jurisdictions, and potentially the acceptance in other jurisdictions, that may take a different view than British Columbia and Canada on these questions. So that’s something people will obviously need to be prepared for, because that has the potential to cause stigma.
I think the intent here is to take away that — to reflect, in laws, the acceptance I think people have in communities. More broadly, it’s really not about the legislation. It’s about the work that we all have to do together as leaders.
I think there is, if you look at social determinants of health…. For all of the people who are most affected by this legislation, those social determinants of health are worse than average. People face fundamental issues of health and support in society, and I think we have to do more work together, collectively, to ensure acceptance, to demonstrate that not just in our laws and in our approach and our policies but in our communities as well.
I think, really, the thoughtful response in the debate by the opposition critic, by the Third Party critic, by all those who come in contact with this legislation, who’ve supported this legislation and have spoken thoughtfully about it, is helpful in that respect. We have to demonstrate that, and we have to continue to do it.
In dealing with issues of discrimination, there are issues out there that go beyond this legislation. We’ve got to commit ourselves to dealing with those issues. On the legislation itself, I think that such changes are broadly helpful, and we have to continue as leaders in this area.
This is more a responsibility of the government of Canada than ours in a legislative sense, but I think it’s our responsibility to citizens to ensure that such opposition to stigma and discrimination is felt everywhere in the world and not just in British Columbia.
S. Bond: The minister has referenced this in terms of his comments about other jurisdictions. I’m interested if there are any other implications for other government documents or records that require information regarding sex or gender.
Hon. A. Dix: Partly, I think, we can look to other jurisdictions that have done this, and gender is not the indicator. It has been sometimes in the past.
In Ontario, there have been 1,100 such birth certificates issued in the years since they made the change that we’re proposing to make today. In Nova Scotia, it has been in place for some time, and in both jurisdictions, they have not seen such effects. We wouldn’t expect to see them here.
Should there be problems associated with them, of course, we’d deal with those. To date, the path taken in other jurisdictions — sometimes we’re first, and sometimes we’re not; in this case, we’re third in Canada in doing this, amongst the provinces — assists us in the belief…. Mr. Shewchuk just told me that this will be dealt with without significant problems.
S. Bond: I want to just ensure…. Can the minister speak to: are there age requirements for when a person may request their sex not be included on a birth certificate?
Hon. A. Dix: There are no limitations except in this respect. Obviously, a parent would order a birth certificate for a baby and up to the age of 12. You would see that. They would be, essentially, requesting a genderless birth certificate.
After that point, it would be a child could do that. A minor over the age of 12 could be able to do that themselves. Obviously, when a child is…. A parent could choose to go and to proceed with a generalist birth certificate. That would be their option up to that point. That’s obvious for small children.
S. Bond: I want to go back for a minute to the discussion around passport applications, for example, and what the implications are there. How would the decision to remove a gender indicator on a birth certificate…? How does that align with federal legislation and policies regarding passport applications? Because it’s one thing to make this decision, and obviously, an important and significant one that families will think about. But what happens when it comes to, for example, applying for a passport? Has the minister considered that?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s a little bit of the answer I gave before, which is that the federal government will accept this for the purposes of a passport, and there is the provision for a genderless passport or for other indicators — M, F or X.
The issue, though…. The federal government does put a warning to people that some jurisdictions may question that around the world, if you’re using it. I am not going to comment on jurisdictions around the world, although the member might well imagine what some of them might be. But that may have an effect, so there is a warning so that people understand that. But ultimately, this is compatible with the application for passport undertaken by the federal government.
S. Bond: It was international travel that I was really concerned about. I appreciate the fact that a passport isn’t the issue; it’s what happens when you have your passport and that people need to be careful about that.
Really, I think I want to ask one additional question, and I ask this more broadly, related to…. Vital Statistics has a role. It collects data, and it looks at our demographics. Often, that helps agencies, governments and others decide policy things. It’s a really important thing in terms of information collection.
So with the changes, the amended legislation, how will that change? How does section 36 change the ability or the process of collecting data?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, two points. Ontario, for example, which is a bigger jurisdiction, has had about 250 a year over the four years, adding up to the 1,100 I referred to earlier. So it’s a relatively small group.
But in addition, this is the birth certificate. The birth registration, which is used for Vital Statistics purposes, continues to be provided. So it doesn’t really affect the statistical thing, which is very important in our overall assessment of issues, especially issues around gender, in fact, in our society.
So that’s the impact it has. Really, the legislation is neutral in that respect. This just provides…. It really takes away what I’d say is an unfair barrier to a whole group of people in terms of getting access and having themselves reflected on their birth certificate, which is, as everybody knows and everybody here knows — we have students in the gallery — is a pretty important piece of primary identification.
Clauses 2 and 3 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Dix: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
The Chair: You’ve heard the question.
Division has been called.
I know that we’re standing between lunch and the vote. The question is that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved unanimously on division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 15 — VITAL STATISTICS
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
Bill 15, Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare: I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION AND CHILD
CARE
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:07 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.
On Vote 20: ministry operations, $8,835,152,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. R. Singh: Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for having me here today. I’m here on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people and the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I’m so honoured to be participating in this estimates — my first time as a minister. I really look forward to answering questions on a wide variety of questions and very important topics.
Before I start, I just want to say my thank-you — how grateful I am to my team and the support I get from public servants who will be working to support me through this process, including deputy minister Christina Zacharuk and the team of ADMs. I’m also joined by ADM Chris Brown and other ADMs and executive directors. I’m so fortunate to work with them. The hard work they put in every day is incredible. I raise my hands to everything they do.
Along with that, I really want to mention the political staff that I have: my chief of staff, Kelly Sather; my ministerial adviser, Dulcy Anderson; my executive assistant, Balkaran Singh; and all the administrative staff that I get to work with every day and all the work that they do to make my work easier.
To start with, I just want to mention…. I want to recognize the staff in our K-to-12 system who make our education system among the best in the world, from teachers to educational assistants, clerical workers, drivers to custodians and maintenance workers, as well as school and district administrators and board trustees.
Schools, we know, are the heart of our communities. As a parent myself whose children have gone through the public school system, I personally know the positive impact that schools have in our children’s lives.
As a government, I’m very, very proud to say that we are working very hard to support students in their growth, whether it’s building more inclusive schools, supporting the mental health of our students or making record investments in school capital projects to meet the growing demand. We know that B.C. is one of the best provinces to live, and we are seeing a record number of people moving to British Columbia.
We also know that different school districts, whether it’s Surrey, Langley, Sooke, Kamloops — the pressure that they are facing. We are, along with my team, working very closely to address those needs. It gives me immense pleasure, and it is my honour that Budget 2023 ensures that our K-to-12 education system will have the highest-ever school operating funding budget with $8.05 billion for the 2023-24 fiscal year.
For the first time in this province, we will also be providing multi-year funding to the school districts that they can rely on to expand existing meal programs so that kids can eat healthy, local foods and focus on learning. I know how important it is for me and every member who is sitting out here, and especially with the growing inflation, the global inflation that we are facing, it is a very, very important thing that we as government are doing. It just warms my heart to mention that.
Finally, I would just like to say that it’s an incredible privilege to serve as B.C.’s Minister of Education and Child Care. I’m very, very thankful to work with a great colleague, the Minister of State for Child Care, who will also get an opportunity to be here today and speak to the historic milestones that we have reached in child care till now. I really thank everybody, and I’m really looking forward to the questions.
The Chair: I now recognize the member for Surrey South. Would you like to make any opening remarks?
E. Sturko: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say thank you to everyone for being here. Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions about this year’s education budget.
I do have a number of questions that I’ll be asking, but I also wish to thank everyone who is working to make our education system, K to 12 and beyond, the best it can be at this present time and especially recognizing the day-to-day work of teachers, education assistants, janitorial staff, administrators, who are there day in and day out, who have been there for our children and who continue to be a pillar of our communities, helping raise up British Columbia’s students.
Keeping that in mind, I am going to ask questions. Maybe some will be tough, but this is being done in the best interest of making our education system as strong as it can be and making sure that we’re providing everything possible to make sure that, going forward, British Columbia’s students’ needs are being met properly.
The Chair: Thank you, Member. Would you like to start with a question?
E. Sturko: I sure would. Thank you, Chair.
Literacy skills, like reading and numeracy, are essential in our information-rich society. Being able to navigate things like the Internet, sift and process information or to find out and fill employment applications or assistance applications, they require literacy.
We know that incarcerated people have higher rates of illiteracy, but recent years’ stats are lacking. We know that in 2012, 79 percent of inmates didn’t have a high school diploma, and 82 percent tested lower than a grade 10 reading level.
The Statistics Canada poverty dashboard in 2022 shows, among 15-year-olds, from 2015-18, that literacy increased by 29 percent, and low numeracy increased by 13.2 percent across Canada.
Here in B.C., in the 2022 students’ success report, in grades 4 and 7, we see reading and numeracy declining. With literacy rates not improving, how will this year’s budget improve literacy rates in B.C.?
Hon. R. Singh: To the member, I really want to thank her for the question. I just want to tell the member that we, our education system, are putting a lot of resources in the issues that you have raised, especially the numeracy and the reading skills. I really want to thank the teachers for the efforts that they are putting into our students every day on an ongoing basis.
Also, I just want to mention that there’s a way to test those skills — the FSA test the students are able to take in grade 4, grade 7 and grade 10. What we have seen from the data is that there haven’t been any significant changes in those rates. We are very comfortable with the number of students taking those tests and the results that we are seeing in that.
I can assure the member that I have a lot of faith in the efforts that our teachers are putting in every day, especially the emphasis that they are putting in our numeracy skills. Our students should be very skilled in that, as well as the reading skills. So really thankful for all the work that is happening in our schools on an everyday basis.
E. Sturko: I actually find it concerning to hear that the government would be comfortable with declining literacy and numeracy rates. I did have a look at the foundational skills assessment, the FSAs, and I did note that there is a decline in numeracy and literacy. Whether or not these are considered by the government to be concerning or not, we’re falling behind other provinces in terms of literacy and numeracy.
I think that any decline in our ability to read, to calculate and to do things that would be basic functions, to be able to navigate things like even filling out a job application in B.C. should be extremely alarming to this government.
It’s good to hear you acknowledging that there has been a decline in literacy and numeracy. But like I said, it is actually quite disturbing to hear that it’s not a concern to see those rates dropping. What programs have been established with the 2023 budget specifically to address numeracy and reading, and how are they going to improve outcomes and graduation opportunities?
Hon. R. Singh: I just want to mention that from 2017 to 2021, the percentage of students on track and extending increased.
In the 2017-18 school year, we had 79 percent of the students on track or exceeding in reading, which went up to 85 percent in 2020-21. For writing in 2017-2018, we had the students on track and exceeding at 80 percent, which went up to 85 percent for the school year 2020-2021.
I also want to just mention that for the year 2021-22, those numbers did go down a little bit. But I also want to tell you that along with this testing, the teachers, on an everyday basis, are doing their assessments in the classrooms. There are different tools so they are able to assess students’ progress in the classrooms, and that is happening. So as I said before, I’m really thankful for all the work that the teachers are doing and the efforts they are putting into our students.
Along with that, I want to mention the support for the Indigenous learners. We know the barriers, the challenges, the Indigenous learners have faced historically. Our government and according to the declaration…. In accordance with our action plan commitment, we have invested $584,000 for the literacy and numeracy programs especially addressing the Indigenous learners. We are hoping that those investments really bring those learners up as well.
We don’t have the numbers for this school year yet. In the coming months, I would be more than happy to provide those numbers as well.
E. Sturko: I was talking specifically to decreases. Really, my most recent FSAs, looking at, are 2022. We know that COVID certainly would have had an impact on literacy and numeracy rates.
I think it’s important to clarify what types of expenditures, what types of programs, what things are being done to help students catch up and to make sure that our literacy improves in the province.
A recent documentary from Oakland, California, which is a film by Jenny Mackenzie and a South by Southwest education 2023 film selection, has a quote from Kareem Weaver. He is a NAACP activist. He says:
“The question is: what becomes of those kids who don’t have a foundation in reading? I can tell you what happens to them. Now, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Kids, as you know, overcome all kinds of challenges. However, illiteracy is a pipeline to prison, and it’s also a pipeline to homelessness. And that pipeline is also a pipeline to unemployment and depression.
“There are also publishing companies that sell popular curriculum that don’t teach our children to read, making millions of dollars. From day one I set foot in Oakland, I realized everything that starts, starts with literacy. Everything starts with reading, math, science, history — you name it. If you can’t read, you can’t access anything in the U.S.”
I read this because I believe that that also is appropriate for here in British Columbia. Everything that we do has a foundation in literacy and numeracy. My question to the minister is: what approach to teaching reading is B.C. using? Is it balanced or structured?
Hon. R. Singh: Thank you to the member. I want to just mention that literacy and numeracy are the foundation of our curriculum in all the classes. One thing I know as a parent, as well, is that every child learns differently. Your own two children are not the same.
The teachers are teaching more than 20 students in a class. Every student has specific needs, specific skills, a specific way that they learn. That’s why I just want to say…. The different tools and different resources that the teachers employ every day recognize those needs, the specific needs that every student has, and work accordingly.
There’s no question how important numeracy and reading are. I completely agree with the member that this is very important — the work that the teachers are putting in and the emphasis that our curriculum has on these specific skills. At the same time, we don’t mandate teachers in the way that they teach students. They are, I think, the experts in the field, and they know the ways and how to impart that education.
E. Sturko: Budget 2023 was…. Were the special supports for special needs…? Were special needs supports in the budget increased or decreased from 2022?
Hon. R. Singh: I want to say that the Education Ministry is committed to ensuring equitable access to learning for all students. We know the learning disabilities category is included in the basic per-pupil allocation amount the ministry provides to boards of education for each student enrolled. This amount includes funds to support general inclusive education services, such as learning assistance, special health services and assessments, including for students with learning disabilities.
Along with that, I want to mention that the per-student funding for special needs levels 1, 2 and 3 has increased this year by 9.4 percent. I just wanted to mention that.
E. Sturko: How many students with designation G were funded and were in schools over the last four years?
Hon. R. Singh: We have 21,438 students who are on the autism spectrum disorder in the system. I hope that is the information the member was looking for.
E. Sturko: I’ll just ask for a little bit of clarification. Can you let me know if the per-pupil amount that the minister previously referenced…? Is that including the G and Q designations of pupils that are currently in the school system?
Hon. R. Singh: Designation G is part of level 2 of special needs. Designation Q is part of the basic funding that we provide to every student. It is part of that.
I also want to address the question the member asked previously about the attendance of the students. The ministry does not keep track of the attendance. It is up to the school districts and the boards of education to do that.
But the total number who are designated with autism spectrum, that number I have already given.
E. Sturko: The minister brought up students who have a Q designation. We know that 80 percent of learning disabilities are dyslexia. With 82,786 students, I believe, with special needs in the education system, it’s easy to think that many have a learning disability.
Are all students with special needs receiving the supports they need for literacy success in the province? Can the minister please outline the programs that are currently being used to ensure all students are screened for dyslexia in B.C. schools?
Hon. R. Singh: I want to say this. Every child should reach their full potential. That’s what we are focused on in our school system.
It is the work the school communities are doing together — to recognize the special needs, especially the specific needs that every child comes with. They are in the best position to find out if there is any diagnosis that needs to be done or any more testing that needs to be done.
One thing that we are very clear…. To get specific assistance or specific resources, a child does not need a medical diagnosis or any specific diagnosis.
The school communities are, I think, the best judge to…. They are working with the student community on an everyday basis. They are the best judge to see what kinds of testing requirements are needed.
When I talk about…. Every student should be reaching their full potential. It is not just dependent on the testing. The resources are provided to the student, even if they are not diagnosed with a particular issue.
The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion.
Hon. R. Singh: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:09 a.m.
The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,912,095,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. M. Dean: Yes. I’d like to start by recognizing that we are doing our work today on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, and that’s really important to me. I represent the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations here provincially and also Scia’new Nation as well.
I really want to thank all of the ministry staff, everyone in the room and everybody who’s out in community delivering services, also the staff of the Indigenous child and family service agencies and the community social services sector, the partner agencies who are delivering services in community as well. It’s actually Community Social Services Awareness Month, and we just had Social Worker Week as well.
Today I have with me our deputy minister, Allison Bond; executive finance officer, Keith Godin; ADMs Cory Heavener, Carolyn Kamper, Denise Devenny and Kelly Durand.
I want to reflect on…. I’m so honoured to be doing this work, and our government has supported this ministry since 2017. We’ve actually seen increases to the budget for this ministry every single year since then, really demonstrating our support and investment in services for children and families across the whole of the province. We’ve been doing some really important work within the ministry as well, making sure that while we’re increasing investments, we’re actually improving outcomes for children and youth as well.
Last year, for example, in November, we passed Bill 38, which is a really significant piece of legislation supporting Indigenous nations exercising inherent jurisdiction. This year, in Budget 2023, we’ll talk about it. We made significant increases in caregivers’ rates, and it was really important in 2019, actually, that we lifted out-of-care payments to be the same as foster care payments as well.
We’re launching four family connections centre pilots. We’re making changes to in-care services, so we’re introducing a network of specialized homes and support services. So if kids do have to come into care, then they’ll actually have their needs met in the home that they are provided with. We’re providing comprehensive supports for youth transitioning from care. We know that leaving government care has been called the superhighway to homelessness and that outcomes are much worse than the general population’s. We want to provide supports so that young people leaving government care are able to thrive.
To show respect for the amazing work that foster carers and out-of-care carers provide and how they support youth and children in care and because of global inflation, we have increased the caregiver rates really significantly. As I said, in Budget 2019, we made the funding for extended families the same as for foster families, and that’s really helping us in our vision and our intention of reducing the number of children and youth in the care system.
In Budget 2023, the lift is $84.9 million, and that is supporting over 5,000 foster parents and caregivers. The maintenance rate was increased by up to 47 percent, and the other rates, the service payment relief care and respite payments, were also increased significantly.
We heard some really heartfelt stories from foster parents. One foster family said, “Oh, that’s such a relief. I can now pay for graduation photos” — for the young person that they were looking after. Another caregiver from Cowichan said: “Financially, I won’t be spending out-of-pocket anymore. Emotionally, I feel more like a valued member of the community. Ultimately, the youth in our care will be cared for in a way that truly honours their needs.” Karla from Richmond said: “It alleviates some of the stress around purchasing groceries and necessities for my family, while showing my work is critical and appreciated. We feel more uplifted, more supported and more capable when we have the financial resources to support our children with what they need to thrive.”
We’re also investing in children and youth with support needs. We’re investing in interim supports for underserved populations. We know the way that the services are delivered at the moment leaves too many children behind.
We’ll be evaluating the family connections centre pilot projects and engaging in deeper consultations with First Nations and the disability community, stakeholders, advocates, families.
The budget for CYSN in 2016 was $303 million. The budget in 2023, this year, is $528.9 million. We’re really investing in this area. We know too many children have been left behind. That includes partnering on service delivery with communities and Indigenous leadership and workforce investments.
We’re expanding respite funding and services across the province. We’re doubling the billing rate cap from $80 an hour to $160 an hour for school-age extended therapy. We’re providing funds to child development centres for 90 foundational program therapists and doubling the budget for the FASD key worker program. There’s also $5 million for an Indigenous engagement and service delivery model. All of this while maintaining individualized funding for children and youth with a diagnosis of autism.
We’re going to learn from engagement. We’re going to learn from the pilots and the evaluation so that we can eventually build a system of supports that meets the unique needs of all children with support needs and that helps them thrive.
As I said, we’re investing in supporting youth and young adults transitioning from government care. Budget 2023 adds $5.2 million to continue implementing wraparound supports. We know that young people are at risk of much more adverse outcomes in lots of different respects in their future, putting them at a real disadvantage.
We’ve already introduced the no-limit earnings exemption. We’re already recruiting youth transition workers. We already have 800 young people on monthly rent supplements of $600 a month, and we’re increasing that through another intake.
We know that we want all children and youth to have the supports that they need to fulfil their potential and to thrive, and we want to keep families together. So we’re working, under the federal legislation and our new provincial legislation, with Indigenous communities to make sure that Indigenous children and youth stay connected to their family, their community and their culture. We know that that’s going to lead to much healthier and more positive and successful outcomes for them.
For far too long, Indigenous children and youth have been overrepresented in the child welfare system. We actually have less than 5,000 children and youth in care now. We have the lowest number of children and youth in care in 30 years and the lowest number of Indigenous children and youth in care in over 20 years.
We have a lot more to do. There’s a lot more to do to make sure that we support all children and youth across the province. My top priority is to make sure children and youth and families have the supports that they need to thrive.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I welcome questions.
The Chair: I recognize the member for Kelowna–Lake Country.
Would you like to make any opening remarks?
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for her opening remarks and to her staff for the work that they do.
I have the privilege of being the critic for Children and Families. I say privilege. Honestly, I’ve…. I’m an adoptive parent. I know how important it is to provide children with a home and with love. I hope I’ve done that for my daughter. I will let her be the judge of that in the years to come.
The home we provide to our children, throughout the province, through the ministry…. It’s also important to make sure that they have a good home with love, whether it’s directly with us or through somebody that has contracted with us.
Given the limited amount of time that we have, that’s really all I wanted to do as an introduction. I’ll go right into the questions.
We will have a series of our colleagues who will be asking questions. Before lunch, I will take some time just to get a baseline of information. If the ministry staff don’t have the information right away and want to come back after lunch, that’s fine too. Then my colleague from Kelowna-Mission will have a few questions before lunch. When we come back, I would like to talk a little bit about group homes and the commitment made by the Premier on group homes. I have three other colleagues who will be asking questions. Then boom, three hours, and we will be done.
With that, I was looking at the Representative for Children and Youth report for 2021-2022. On page 63, the representative provides statistics, since ’16-17, on critical injuries, deaths and totals. In that time series, the statistics changed drastically around ’18-19 and ’19-20. They’ve expanded the definition of “in-mandate injuries” to include emotional harm.
Two things I want to get a handle on are: do we have numbers yet for ’22-23 that the ministry can share? I imagine not, but just in case, if there’s something there. Also, is it possible to get numbers without the expanded definition? Every time an accountant or somebody else changes the definition, of course, it’s hard to compare apples to apples.
For example, critical injuries in ’16-17 were 754; and then 818; and then they jumped to 1,061, 1,252 and in 2021, 1,825, and in ’21-22, 2,406. It’s something different in deaths, where deaths in ’16-17 were 112; and in ’21-22, not good news in the sense that people are still dying but good news in the sense that it’s not going up, it was 110. Again, there’s no change in definition there for “death.”
Death seems to be staying approximately the same — from 112, 110, 95, 110; but it’s quite a rise in critical injuries. If it’s possible to understand what the critical injuries would have been without the expanded definition, it will give us a good idea as to whether things are getting better or worse or staying the same.
Why don’t I just stop there, and perhaps the minister and ministry staff will have the answer to that. If not, again, after lunch is fine.
Hon. M. Dean: We don’t have the numbers yet for ’22-23. It might be possible to get an approximate number for the member. It would take some time. It would take work internally in the ministry to try and see if we could pull out what you were asking for that would be without the change of definition.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that. I knew it would take some time. So it would be great to have that back.
The other piece that comes clear to me when I look at the representative’s report, on page 64…. She talks about critical injuries, provides statistics between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, and the percentage. So in critical injuries, she identifies 57 percent total Indigenous, for injuries, with 43 percent being non-Indigenous. But when you look at deaths, it’s the inverse. It’s 41 percent Indigenous and 59 percent non-Indigenous. Does the minister have any explanation as to why that difference in statistics?
Hon. M. Dean: Of course, when a child dies, it’s heartbreaking. It’s a tragedy for everybody who has been involved in the life of that child and youth.
When a child in care, where the government is responsible…. There’s a clear process for making sure that there is a review if that child passes away — indeed, if that child has received services within the prior 12 months as well. That immediately triggers lots of steps that the ministry takes.
The provincial director of child welfare is informed within 24 hours, and a reportable circumstances report is sent to the provincial director of child welfare. Then there are also other independent bodies who have information sent to them as well, and a practice review is conducted as well. The provincial director will also receive all of this information and will be able to then monitor whether there are any trends or whether there’s any practice that needs to be addressed.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. But my question was why the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous. With respect, the minister has not provided that answer.
While the minister is looking for the answer, perhaps also, how does that compare with the general population, people in care versus the general population? If we have those statistics…. Are children dying just as frequently in the general population as they are in care, and if they are not, why not? What are we doing that we can do better in government to take care of our children?
Hon. M. Dean: It is important to talk about what happens in individual circumstances, and that is reviewed, because that’s where, if there are any trends, they would be identified.
As the member points out, the rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous are different, but there are more Indigenous children and youth who are actually in the care system. It’s clearly more complex than just looking at numerical trends.
What’s really important to us is that we’re making improvements in practice. We’re making legislative changes, and we’re making practice and policy changes, because we want to make sure that Indigenous children and youth stay connected to their family and their community and their culture.
Each individual situation is different and gets looked at and gets reviewed by the provincial director. The numbers that we have in the ministry can’t be compared to the general population because a lot of children and youth are coming into care at an expected end-of-life stage. Because they have very complex medical needs, they’re actually coming into care and receiving palliative services. So there can’t be that comparison with the general population.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Perhaps to give us an idea as to how we are doing, maybe when the staff come back and the minister comes back at some point with the other statistics that we discussed 15 minutes ago, they can also give us a comparison to other provinces. I see nodding of heads, so I’ll just leave it there.
That way, we’ll have an idea as to how we’re doing in B.C., relative to other provinces, and what we can learn from other provinces and their actions and their changes to legislation and policies that maybe we can adopt and share our ways of doing things with them and improve the state for children all across the country.
With that, Madam Chair, the member for Kelowna-Mission has a question.
R. Merrifield: I’m going to start on a little bit of a different trajectory using my critic role in gender equity and inclusion as a framework and talk more about family violence. As we know, family violence, domestic violence and intimate partner violence include physical, could include sexual violence, and it can include emotional and financial abuse. Really, we’re looking at all demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds being affected.
There are a lot of costs to our economy, a lot of costs to our society. Those include things like health care, our justice system, employers, businesses, social and community services, but ultimately, injury and loss of life. I won’t get into the Canadian statistics, because B.C. actually had one of the largest provincial increases in Canada in 2019. That was a 25 percent increase in the rate of family violence.
B.C. actually had a rate of intimate partner violence increase by almost the same amount, and the rate of family violence in B.C. was actually two times higher in rural areas than urban areas. In rural areas, the intimate partner violence is 3½ times higher for women than men.
The rate of family violence against children increased 41 percent in B.C. in 2019 over the previous year. I’d love to say that those statistics are down, but unfortunately, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many children and youth who had minimal exposure to people outside the home — such as friends, teachers, doctors and counsellors — were actually the victims of violence that was even more hidden.
My question, based on these statistics and from this framework, is this: could the minister please confirm that the provincial office of domestic violence was disbanded?
Hon. M. Dean: Just in response to the member’s question about comparisons with other provinces, British Columbia was actually the first province in all of Canada to pass provincial legislation supporting the federal act, supporting Indigenous jurisdiction, and we actually signed our first coordination agreement in B.C. last week.
On the provincial office that the member was asking about, the responsibility for that moved over to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General some years ago.
R. Merrifield: Could the minister please confirm what year that was actually moved over to PSSG?
Hon. M. Dean: It was 2018.
R. Merrifield: Thank you so much. That concludes my questions.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for her answers. What steps is the minister taking to improve the transparency and accountability of the child welfare system, as well as to regularly monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs in reducing the number of deaths and critical injuries among children and youth in care?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. We actually have a reporting portal, where people are able to go onto the website and they can actually get access to an awful lot of detail and information. It was just updated last week. No other jurisdiction in Canada provides as much information as British Columbia does through a mechanism such as that.
We routinely provide accountability statements to nations and Métis Nation B.C. as well. We provide them with information about financial investments and financial resources that have been spent, statistics — numbers of children and youth in care — and provincial statistics as well.
We provide that, proactively, regularly with all nations. We’re engaging with our stakeholders and partners on our new approach to quality assurance. We do actually need to make sure that we’re looking at outcomes and making sure that services are being delivered in the way and to the standard that we want them to be delivered.
As the member mentioned to begin with, we need to talk to children and youth, and hear from them. Are they experiencing the love they need while they’re in government care and in a home that’s supported by the government? Not just love, but are they getting what they need, and is the home safe and nurturing, and secure for them?
We also publicly post case reviews. We also publicly post practice evaluations as well.
N. Letnick: Noting the hour, it’s probably my last question before we adjourn.
Can the minister expand on the portal? Does the portal provide typical causes of self-harm or harm? For example, are we seeing more self-harm? Are we seeing more injuries, or is it…? I’ll just leave that there.
Will the portal give us more statistics so we can identify how the outcomes are going? As the minister said, we’re trying to focus more on outcomes. I’ll just leave it there, given the time that we have.
Hon. M. Dean: What we’ll do is we’ll send you a list of all of the types of information that’s available on the portal, just so you can actually see all the different ways you can kind of go in and get data and get a report-out as well.
The provincial director’s office goes through all of the reviews. The purpose of that is to try and identify if there are any trends.
With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.