Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 25, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 312
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2023
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Glumac.
Introductions by Members
A. Singh: Today a delegation of 22 people are joining us. They are participants of the Dr. Ambedkar International Symposium on Emancipation in Vancouver and Equality Day.
Dr. Ambedkar was a tireless jurist and advocate for equality and the head of the committee that wrote the constitution of India, heralded by many legal advocates at the time as one of the most progressive constitutions in the world.
One of the guests is a grand-nephew of Dr. Ambedkar, Rajaratna Ambedkar. They have been celebrating Dr. B.R. Ambedkar International Symposium on Emancipation events all week at UBC, SFU and UVic. Also joining them is my good friend Jai Birdi.
Let us welcome them.
Hon. A. Mercier: I’d just like to welcome my wife and two children to the House. Kate is my best friend, my better half, and I couldn’t do half the things I do without her. My son is the one up there with the great hair, Simon. He’s a year old. Charlotte’s here, too, your biggest fan, Mr. Speaker, and it’s her fifth birthday next week.
Will the House please welcome my family.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Will the chamber please extend a warm welcome to my guests and, also, the guests of the Minister for Public Safety, participants and alumni of the Guthrie program, which is a therapeutic community within the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. It’s the only place in the province, but I’m also told the only place in the country, that has this therapeutic community built into the prison system.
Please join me in welcoming Lauren Krowicki, John Horn, Harry Shergill and Jason Foley.
Thank you for being here.
P. Milobar: Today we have several members from the Simpcw First Nation here, down for meetings yesterday and today as well. With us, we have Kukpi7 George Lampreau; Sam Phillips; the senior adviser with their natural resource department; Andre Taniguti, the director of finance and operations; and the government-to-government coordinator Corbin Kelley.
Will the House please make them all feel welcome.
H. Yao: Today I would like to ask the chamber to welcome a delegation coming from Vancouver Davis College, an educational institution in Richmond. Please welcome Winnie Zhang, executive vice-principal; Sun Hua, vice-president for marketing; Tina Zhang, campus operation director; Dan Tidsbury — I do apologize if I butcher your name — vice-president for compliance and development; and Owen Sun.
Please join me in welcoming them. Thank you, everyone.
K. Paddon: Today I would like to welcome Jake Power back to the Legislature. Jake runs PowerWood in Kent. It’s a fantastic organization. He’s here with the B.C. value-added. I’m not going to be able to join the group for lunch, but it’s okay because I know where Jake works, and he’s always happy to fill me in.
Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Tegart: Today in the gallery, I have a friend visiting from Calgary with her grandson. Please welcome Carol Mann and her grandson Tyson and their friends, Val and Courtney Ell.
Welcome to the House.
D. Routley: I’d like to join the member for Chilliwack-Kent in welcoming the value-added wood coalition.
British Columbia’s forest industry has defined our past and will shape our future. Value-added wood manufacturing businesses and their earnest, hardworking employees are trail-blazing new ideas and new products within our forest sector.
I’m happy to introduce Andy Rielly, who is the president of Rielly Lumber, chair of IWPA and the father of Toronto Maple Leafs star defenceman Morgan Rielly.
Mr. Speaker, I never thought I’d say this, but go, Leafs, go!
I’d also like to welcome Brian Hawrysh, Brian Menzies, Dan Battistella, Doug Pauze, Jake Power, John Gillis, Ken Kalesnikoff, and Warren Carter. These folks and the companies and workers they represent are innovators and entrepreneurs who make new and forward-looking products. These businesses support families around the province. They use every part of the tree to make a big impact.
It isn’t just what they produce that’s important. It’s the ingenuity and the innovation that they bring to their profession in British Columbia. That innovation has been at the core of our value-added sector for many, many years, and it makes B.C.’s value-added sector leaders at a time when the world needs us all to stand up for innovation and change.
These people are here in the gallery. I’d like you all to welcome them.
D. Ashton: I, too, would like to echo the comments by my peer from Nanaimo–North Cowichan on value-added timber.
I come from a community that had lots of opportunity and had lots of industries that were doing it. I think, as we have all heard, it’s more and more important for the province of British Columbia to continue to utilize every part of those wonderful trees that we grow in our incredible forests.
I would like to recognize all the members up there from the value-added coalition, especially a gentleman that I had the opportunity, in my first years here, of working with, Brian Menzies.
Good to see everybody. Thank you for coming.
S. Furstenau: I have three guests in the gallery today who are here to shadow me.
Jack Bradley is from Orangeville, Ontario. Now in his third year at UBC studying bioeconomy science, he’s interested in the development of sustainable communities, renewable energy alternatives, spending time outdoors, playing guitar and working at his dream job as a student park ranger with B.C. Parks.
Monika Arcadi is in her first year at UVic, studying French and environmental studies. She’s originally from New Westminster, B.C. and competes on the track team. While she doesn’t have a favourite topic yet, she is passionate about learning. I’m with her on that.
Cynthia recently moved from Calgary to study her first year of forestry. She’s doing a degree in forest bioeconomy science and technology at UBC. Global natural disasters drew Cynthia into the fight against climate change and learning about environmental law, policy and sustainability.
I’m delighted to have them joining me here today. Would the House please make them most welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES
AND DISCUSSIONS IN
HOPE AND MERRITT
J. Tegart: B.C. is facing a crisis in mental health and addictions, and we need to be talking about it more. That is why my colleague the member for Surrey South and I will be hosting community conversations this week — to share experiences and ideas for change in the communities of Hope and Merritt.
No matter where you live in B.C., in a big city centre or a smaller more rural community, it’s likely that you or someone you know has been touched by this issue. Many people have also been touched by the great work of our local social service agencies, who are doing the best they can to keep up with the high demand for help.
I want to highlight two of these organizations, one in Hope and one in Merritt. The Hope and Area Transition Society, or HATS, provides substance use services for adults and youth, as well as other youth and family services and supports for those looking for housing, through a trauma-informed approach.
Meanwhile, the ASK Wellness Society in Merritt provides a range of outreach support services designed to assist people facing homelessness, mental health, substance misuse or a combination of these factors. Their vision is to “work towards a society that recognizes the value and potential of each individual.”
Recovery is possible. It’s my sincere hope that people in the communities of Hope and Merritt will stop by for one of our community conversations. We’re in Hope this Friday, April 28 at 6:30 and in Merritt on Saturday at 1:30 in the afternoon. I’m looking forward to the discussion.
I thank my colleague for joining me. These are conversations that need to happen in every community.
SKILLED TRADES
TRAINING PROGRAMS IN
BURNABY
J. Routledge: April is Construction and Skilled Trades Month, so I’d like to take this opportunity to tell you about SkillPlan. It’s located in Burnaby North.
SkillPlan was created more than 40 years ago to improve apprenticeship training and outcomes. Today it is considered a leader in Canada for pinpointing foundational skills challenges and designing curriculum and industry-specific training programs to address these challenges.
Their Build Your Skills online personal training hub helps people gain the skills they need to enter and succeed in the skilled trades. Their online courses have easy-to-follow lessons, interactive activities and video tutorials to help learners in trade math, reading, science and more. In B.C., SkillPlan is currently working with many unions, colleges and school districts to ensure learners have access to these supportive tools.
The SkillPlan mentorship program supports apprentices and journeyworkers to learn how to create a supportive culture on the jobsite, where 80 percent of knowledge transfer actually happens. This, in turn, supports a more diverse workforce, enhances productivity and improves safety on the job.
The SkillPlan Building It Green program recognizes that reducing greenhouse gas emissions relies heavily on the climate literacy of the skilled trades. Building It Green helps them understand their role in constructing and maintaining net-zero projects.
SkillPlan serves 14 international building trades unions, their affiliated contractors and their technical training providers to support thousands of apprentices every year to achieve their trade certificates. I’m proud that they are part of the Burnaby community.
BOWEN ISLAND AND WHISTLER
COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTRES
J. Sturdy: The delivery of health care must change and is changing. Community-led efforts are being developed across the province in response to the shortage of family practice physicians. In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, two active and engaged communities have been creating solutions in community: Bowen Island and Whistler.
On Bowen Island, the ambition was bold: to build a new community health centre to house primary, emergency, mental, public and dental health as well as ancillary services. After years of planning, constant fundraisers, the efforts of a deeply passionate community and the contributions of over 500 Bowen Island families, they raised $6 million to get the project started, and it’s tracking to be open in the fall of this year. I certainly look forward to celebrating with them on that day. The community health centre is owned and operated by the Bowen Island Health Centre Foundation, which is an independent registered charity.
In Whistler, the vision for an integrated health centre was similar. A task force was formed in 2019 in response to a chronic shortage of family physicians. They began with an assessment of existing models, with a focus on structures where a local society manages primary care clinics.
In 2022, the Whistler 360 Health Collaborative Society achieved registered charitable status, which enabled them to act on their phased approach, starting with the provision of affordable space and more doctors now. The society was able to secure a vacant commercial space along Main Street, where the first new physician saw her first patient on March 29, just a couple of weeks ago.
In both cases, the society takes care of the business of primary care while the practitioners focus on patients — very much what doctors really want to be doing.
These innovative initiatives take years of dedicated volunteer work and commitment and are changing the landscape of primary care in favour of community-led models.
I’m sure the House will join me in wishing Bowen Island and Whistler much success in bringing quality longitudinal family practice to their communities.
FUNDRAISER WALK
FOR AQUATIC CENTRE IN
AGASSIZ
K. Paddon: If you have been lucky enough to spend some time in Chilliwack-Kent, I hope that you’ve had the opportunity to visit the Kent area, which includes the small but mighty Agassiz at the foot of the beautiful Mount Cheam. Kent also includes the small but mighty mayor, Sylvia Pranger.
This past Saturday Mayor Pranger laced up her running shoes — actually, a couple of pairs — and set out on a 26-kilometre trek from Agassiz to Chilliwack. More specifically, the mayor left the district of Kent municipal hall and walked to the closest indoor pool facility at the Landing Leisure Centre in Chilliwack.
Why? Well, this walk, and the distance covered, was to demonstrate the need for an all-season pool in Agassiz and to fundraise so that there is accessibility and inclusivity for all. In order to make the pool a reality, the district of Kent has a goal to fundraise $1 million to be added to provincial and federal grants. Last year, our government committed $9.5 million to the project, but rising costs and inflation mean a little more support is needed, so the community is fundraising.
Mayor Pranger began the walk with Chief Andrew Victor of Cheam First Nation and was met at the end by city of Chilliwack mayor Ken Popove, with many supporters, walkers, businesses and volunteers all along the way. When I spoke with Mayor Pranger yesterday, to see how her spirits and her feet were feeling, she shared that she is so thankful to the community and the province. She said that she feels wonderful and was so grateful for the strength, the good weather and all the encouragement along the way.
The project is more than just a pool. It is to be a regional centre, operated by the district of Kent, serving all partnering communities equitably. Its name is Lets’emot regional aquatic centre.
The Halq’eméylem word lets’emó:t stands for one heart, one mind. The district will be incorporating this concept into the plans in the spirit of embracing all neighbouring communities, including FVRD, Harrison Hot Springs, Seabird Island, Cheam First Nation, Sts’ailes First Nation and Sq’èwlets First Nation.
Mayor Pranger’s walk raised an estimated $30,000 towards this exciting project, but there’s still more to raise. If you’re interested in learning more, check out www.kentbc.ca.
AI DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CHATBOT
IN
KELOWNA
R. Merrifield: Kelowna is the birthplace of entrepreneurship in the province, and our city hall is part of keeping that groundbreaking spirit going. The city has recently showcased one of the newest advancements in their tool belt, using innovation to help solve our housing crisis and to better serve our residents. You almost won’t believe how. It’s through artificial intelligence, or AI.
During the UBCM housing summit panel earlier this month, Mayor Tom Dyas shared with other B.C. mayors how Kelowna is about to introduce its AI development permit chatbot, utilizing AI to streamline development processes and improve customer service. Kelowna announced that they are the first in Canada, and possibly even in North America, to pilot this AI chatbot, a project that they are working on in collaboration with Microsoft Canada.
This AI chatbot builds on the past successes, such as recreation customer service, YLW airport and snow removal chatbots, which have positively resolved up to 80 percent of phone calls and public interactions. But this takes it to a whole new level. The development services chatbot, set to launch later this year, aims to remove barriers to housing delivery and provide faster and more efficient development processes.
By offering support to residents 24/7, the AI chatbot will free up staff time and improve the quality of applications for building and development permits. This will not only reduce wait times, but also ensure that projects meet Kelowna’s high standards and are processed quickly for immediate construction.
But Kelowna isn’t making this proprietary. They want all municipalities to share what they have developed, making all of B.C. better. The AI development permit chatbot exemplifies Kelowna’s commitment to innovation, technology, and, most importantly, our community and our province.
To all the city staff, like our CAO, Doug Gilchrist, and divisional director of planning and development services, Ryan Smith, and to the council and Mayor Tom Dyas, thank you for your vision, innovation and your help in solving the housing crisis.
VOLUNTEERISM AND EVENTS
IN COMOX
VALLEY
R. Leonard: Saturday was Earth Day, and it was the perfect day to end Volunteer Week. Dozens of dedicated volunteers came out in miserable weather to engage with others, showcasing their work and inspiring others to join in their efforts to better their community and this planet.
My husband and I joined a watershed walk organized by the volunteers of Millard Piercy Watershed Stewards. As is befitting the heart and soul of volunteers, a day later, we came upon an extension of Earth Day activities. Courtenay councillor Doug Hillian and his wife, Shelagh, and Gord and Val Sherriff made up one of a number of teams volunteering their time in a shoreline cleanup organized by Project Watershed.
We also came upon the volunteer effort on display at the annual Snow to Surf, which sees over 1,000 athletes and their cheerleaders hosted in a relay race from Mount Washington down to Comox Marina.
Earlier this year, I recounted in this House the ongoing, monumental volunteer efforts of the Comox Valley Ukrainian Cultural Society to help displaced Ukrainians. In the long list of volunteers I mentioned, I’m afraid I omitted Susan Plensky, who is a very hard-working chair for the society’s committee to fund incoming Ukrainians.
On the weekend of July 14 to 16, coming up, a corps of hundreds of volunteers, some who’ve been busy all year long, will make sure thousands of people enjoy our Vancouver Island Music Fest.
Whatever your interest, there is a place to volunteer. Grads, take note. Volunteering is a way to meet new friends, or your soulmate, learn new skills or be inspired to a career. There’s nothing like the feeling of being part of something bigger than yourself. I know that that was my path to this place.
Volunteers weave communities together. Our Comox Valley is a rich tapestry.
Come for a visit and see. We welcome tourists beyond Tourism Week.
Oral Questions
ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY
JUSTICE SYSTEM
M. de Jong: In communities across British Columbia, the epidemic of violent crime continues to get worse. Innocent people are being stabbed, beaten and brutally assaulted at a rate we’ve never seen before.
The one expectation that every reasonable person would have is that when a repeat offender, who has committed a violent crime, who has breached conditions of their release, is the subject of a warrant for arrest, this government would at least ask the court to have that person detained pending their trial. But the data that the government has released confirms that in fully half of those cases, the government didn’t even ask for detention.
Yes, the courts are independent. But I can guarantee you this. If the government doesn’t ask to have that violent repeat offender detained, he or she won’t be.
Can the Premier explain why, in half the cases of a violent repeat offender being back before the courts on a new charge, the government didn’t even ask, in the name of public safety, to have that person detained?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question on this very important issue.
Public safety is something that this government takes very seriously. In fact, we’ve been leading the charge to ask for bail reform from the federal government. We issued a directive to the B.C. Crown Prosecution Service that resulted in the strictest bail policy in all of Canada. The preliminary results are showing that in the majority of those cases, detentions are being denied.
That’s why we, as a government, have been seeking federal reform to the Criminal Code, which is the law of the land. We’ve joined ministers from across this country and received a commitment from the federal government that as early as this spring, they would amend the Criminal Code. We use the government will continue to keep that pressure on.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.
M. de Jong: Well, the government can ask for all the reforms it wants. I can guarantee you this. If the government doesn’t ask to have a violent repeat offender detained, they won’t be. In half of the cases that came before the courts, according to this data, the government didn’t even bother to ask.
A year ago we provided a draft directive to this government that focused precisely on violent prolific repeat offenders. The government sat on its hands for almost a year. The Attorney hasn’t answered the question.
With the rate of violent crime, the list of innocent victims piling up, why on earth is the government refusing to at least ask the courts in half of the cases of repeat violent offenders who are wanted on a warrant, who have already breached a condition of release…? Is the government not even asking, in the name of public safety, to have those violent offenders detained?
Hon. N. Sharma: Public safety is something we take very seriously, and that’s why we have the strictest bail policy in all of Canada. In fact, Saskatchewan has adopted our bail policy.
As the member knows as a former Attorney General, the Crown counsel is tasked with making independent charge assessments, but what we know is that when they do seek detention, they’ve determined that there is a public safety risk or there’s public confidence at risk of the justice system.
That’s when they’re seeking detention, and in those cases, in the majority of time, that’s denied. What we have said as the government, repeatedly, and what we’ll continue to say, is the federal government needs to make bail reform a priority.
The Premier met with Premiers across the country last Friday. I issued a letter to Minister Lametti asking for those changes and will continue to advocate for them.
E. Sturko: Once again, instead of addressing the Premier’s failed catch-and-release justice system, the NDP has opted to manipulate the numbers.
The Premier only told half of the story when he tried to shift the blame for not doing his job on delivering on the promises that he made. The reality is that under this soft-on-crime Premier, the province only seeks detention of violent offenders who breached their bail conditions in 50 percent of the cases.
If a prolific offender commits a violent crime while out on bail, why on earth wouldn’t this government want to, at the very least, make the argument that this person should be held in custody for public safety?
Hon. N. Sharma: As the member would know, as somebody who’s participated in the criminal justice system before, Crown counsel has the independent charge assessment process. What we do know, with the stats that were held and released by the B.C. Prosecution Service, is that when Crown has made an assessment that public safety is at issue or the public confidence in the justice system is at issue and they’re seeking detention, in a majority of time, that’s denied.
That’s why we’re calling on bail reform. It’s the law of the land under the Criminal Code, which is the federal government. We’re joining provinces across this country who are also seeing a rise in repeat violent offenders to call upon the federal government for those changes and will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.
E. Sturko: Our Attorney General is correct. I do have experience working with our criminal justice system, so I do know for a fact that it is this Attorney General who sets the framework for charge assessments in British Columbia. It’s this Attorney General that would be setting the guidelines for what’s considered in the public interest. And I can tell you that we’ve been asking them to consider it in the public interest to put people’s safety above the rights of criminals in this province.
We can talk about criminality and problems in other provinces, but the reality is that B.C. stands out with its exceptionally low charge approval rates, minimal population of individuals held in custody and a soaring number of violent criminals. Yesterday’s data just validates everything that we have been saying about the NDP’s catch-and-release justice system, even as this government insists and kept insisting that the system isn’t broken.
If you’re not seeking the detention of half of repeat offenders who have already demonstrated — they have already demonstrated — they are in breach of conditions, then there’s something wrong with your directive. Meanwhile, four people a day are randomly attacked in Vancouver every single day.
Instead of deflecting blame onto judges or the federal government, will the Attorney General take responsibility and mandate that in every case involving a prolific offender committing a violent crime while out on bail, that they are going to seek detention?
Hon. N. Sharma: We have the strictest bail policy in all of Canada. In fact, Saskatchewan has adopted, largely, our bail policy. We have asked our Crown counsel, as I mentioned before, to use everything that they can within the current federal law to address repeat violent offenders. They make independent charge assessments, as I mentioned before, and when they make those assessments and they determine that public safety and the public confidence in the justice system is at risk, they seek detention.
What we know from the preliminary data, and what I’ve raised concerns about, is that changes to the federal Criminal Code are needed before our Crown counsel and our justice system have the tools necessary to actually obtain that detention when it’s needed.
DRUG TOXICITY CRISIS
AND ACCESS TO SAFE
SUPPLY
A. Olsen: More than 11,000 British Columbians have died from toxic illicit drugs since 2016. It’s the leading cause of unnatural deaths in our province, and these deaths are preventable.
Of all the people who use drugs in this province, less than 1 percent can access safe supply, according to this government’s own numbers. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians use drugs and 100,000 of those people have an opioid dependence. This government says that saving lives is their first priority, yet 99 percent of the people who use drugs — whether daily, on the weekends or just once in a while or just once — only have access to a toxic supply that is killing thousands of British Columbians.
This government could expand safe supply and save thousands of lives, but they are concerned about their own political viability. As Moms Stop the Harm writes: “It’s the result of stigma and lack of will on the part of policy-makers.”
My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. When will she expand safe supply to anyone who needs it in this province?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for raising a very important question with respect to work that we have done in this province that is ahead of where many other jurisdictions are at with respect to supporting individuals who use drugs, working to create measures to try and separate individuals from the toxic drug supply.
We stood up our prescribed safer supply program in the midst of the early days of COVID through our risk mitigation guidelines on the advice of public health officials in order to try to support individuals in the midst of the pandemic and in the midst of the profound disruption that the pandemic brought.
We’re working very hard with providers, with our health authorities, with physicians, with regulatory bodies, to expand the availability of prescribed safer supply. We are adding more and more physicians, and nurse practitioners are stepping up every month to provide those services. We know the regulatory bodies are working. Health authorities are working.
We’ll continue to do that work. We understand the importance of measures to separate people from the toxic drug supply.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
A. Olsen: This government should be acknowledged for taking the first step, but the steps are not going far enough.
Data released found that First Nations people are five times more likely to die from toxic drug poisoning than the rest of the population. Indigenous women died at 11 times the rate of other women in British Columbia. The First Nations Health Authority said that First Nations people have even worse access to substance use treatment, including safe supply, than the rest of the population. This mass death is the result of policy failures and policies that do not go far enough, and it’s disproportionately harming First Nations people.
The B.C. NDP government is ignoring the advice of its own experts. The chief coroner acknowledged the longest public health emergency in the province’s history, calling it a crisis of incomprehensible scale. The chief coroner’s death review panel asked this government to go further on safe supply through medical prescription and compassion club models. Expanded safe supply and compassion clubs access is nowhere to be seen in British Columbia.
My question is to the Premier. Why has he not supported the expansion of safe supply to stop the mass casualties that we’re seeing month after month after month and, in fact, year after year after year?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I do want to just acknowledge and thank the member for raising the disproportionate impact of this crisis on Indigenous people. I am grateful to the work that is done through our First Nations Health Authority, working very closely with the First Nations Health Council, First Nations and our regional health authorities to identify those gaps in care and supports for Indigenous people that are so critical for us to work on to turn the tide on the toxic drug crisis.
Since March 2020, nearly 12,000 people have been connected with prescribed safer supply. In February 2023, over 4,800 people received a prescribed safer supply, and 330 of these were people who we connected to a prescription for the first time. That’s very important progress in terms of having those individuals in a system connected with care so that we can continue to support that individual on their wellness journey.
I know the coroner has done important work with respect to looking at how safe supply is working and has confirmed that safe supply is a helpful and important tool, as our public health officials have also advised. Work is underway to evaluate how prescribed safer supply is being offered.
We are working with all of our partners to scale up that program so that we can separate more people from the toxic drug supply.
ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY
JUSTICE SYSTEM
P. Milobar: I can appreciate the Attorney General…. It must be frustrating to have to clean up the mess from the previous Attorney General, because the Premier was the Attorney General for five years, did create a soft-on-crime, catch-and-release system that we’re seeing the ramifications of today.
What the data has shown is that the changes to the directives by this government haven’t worked, and 50 percent of the people are not moving forward and being held. They are being released. Under the soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release justice system, there are still four unprovoked stranger assaults every single day in Vancouver. Despite all of the hollow rhetoric coming from this government, the empty announcements, violent prolific offenders continue to cause chaos.
Yesterday we learned that the attacker in the high-profile Surrey SkyTrain random stabbing was apprehended and then promptly released back into the community. This unprovoked stranger attack left the victim with a serious stab wound to their stomach.
What British Columbians want to know is: how can someone stab a person on the SkyTrain one day and be promptly released back on the street, and why are half of violent repeat offenders being let off the hook by this soft-on-crime Premier?
Hon. N. Sharma: As I mentioned before, this government takes public safety very seriously. I mentioned earlier about having the strictest bail policy in all of Canada and the efforts that we’re taking to step up and call on the federal government to make that change to the Criminal Code. The judges are tasked with implementing, independently, the laws of the land. In this case, it falls within the federal government to amend the Criminal Code.
We’re not stopping there. We take public safety so seriously that I am working with my colleagues across this side to stand up programming across this province to address repeat violent offenders. On May 1, we will have the repeat violent offender intervention initiative, which will be a collaboration between Crown counsel, police officers, probation officers to circle around these prolific violent offenders and to help use every tool in our justice system to address their violence.
My colleague from Public Safety has invested the largest investment in this province’s history in the RCMP officers. My colleague from Mental Health and Addictions has invested $1 billion in mental health and addiction supports.
We’re working together, as a government, to address public safety in this province, and we’ll continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
P. Milobar: The best protection for a community against a violent prolific offender is to keep the violent prolific offender in jail.
We know that if you don’t ask, they won’t grant. Now we know, with the data, that the provincial prosecutors only seek detention for dangerous criminals who commit more crimes while on bail 50 percent of the time. That’s it. That’s on this Premier. It’s simply not good enough.
In Nanaimo, three criminals were pulled over for driving a truck with no insurance. Inside police found drugs, face masks, zap straps, a large hunting knife, a collapsible baton, a baseball bat and a tactical semi-automatic pistol-grip shotgun.
Doesn’t sound like they going to a ball field, and it doesn’t sound like they were going duck hunting. Violent criminals — that’s what they use to carry out violent crimes. And one of these individuals even had multiple outstanding warrants. But despite the overwhelming evidence, all three were released back into community. That’s the 50 percent that don’t even get detention sought by this government.
When will the Premier stop prioritizing criminals’ rights to reoffend and start putting the safety of communities like Nanaimo and everywhere else in this province first?
Hon. N. Sharma: As I mentioned, we’re a government that takes public safety very seriously. In fact, some of the communities that were mentioned by the previous member — Nanaimo, Cranbrook — were the sites of these hubs for repeat violent offender initiatives. This was built on a program that existed in 2012 that was cut by that government.
What we saw in that program was a 40 percent reduction in repeat violent offending, and we’ve stood up that team very quickly. The B.C. Prosecution Service, along with police and probation officers, have done amazing work in terms of standing up those hubs across…. We’ve announced 12 across this province, and as of May 1, they’ll be operational.
It’s amazing work to have that stood up. It’s because we care about public safety. We care about investing in the things that are going to make this situation better for people across this province, and we’ll continue to do so.
E. Ross: The spin cycle and the blame game are getting tiresome, because it’s the residents of B.C. that are suffering because of the spin cycle from this government, especially when you consider that a solution was offered by this side of the House that would have had immediate results instead of these year-long…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
E. Ross: …spin cycles promoted by this government when we’re talking about the safety of our citizens.
Interjection.
E. Ross: Speak up. I can’t hear you.
Mr. Speaker: Member will continue.
Please continue.
E. Ross: Violent repeat offenders keep causing havoc and getting released back on the street, and no amount of NDP protocol spin is going to change that.
It was over a year ago that I asked the Premier about his catch-and-release justice system and the chaos and crime in Terrace. He dismissed the issue as mere anecdotes. Those were his words. Then we had this government claim the system isn’t broken. Well, now British Columbians are saying that the system is broken.
My question is to the Premier. If a prolific offender in Terrace commits a violent crime while out on bail, why doesn’t the government prioritize public safety by at least making an effort to keep them detained instead of releasing them half the time?
Hon. N. Sharma: We have the strictest bail policy in all of Canada. We’ve asked our Crown counsel, through a directive, to seek detention in situations where repeat violent offending is at issue. They make their independent assessments, and they do so.
As I mentioned earlier, this is why we see and been advocating…. Every time I get asked this question in this House, including my predecessors, I’ve been saying federal reform is needed to the Criminal Code in order to make those changes.
We have seen, unfortunately, this issue of violence be in many cities across this country. We have joined Premiers and ministers from across this country to talk about public safety issues and to call upon the federal government to make the changes to the Criminal Code but also help us with resources in terms of responding.
We haven’t stopped, in terms of standing up the programs and using every tool in our toolkit to address this issue, and we’ll continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.
E. Ross: There was a solution provided in this House by my colleague from Abbotsford West, a private member’s bill that was not called by this government. There were 87 MLAs that could have debated that bill in the interest of keeping our communities safe. That bill was not called. The results could have been immediate instead of this year-long process of spin cycles.
Prolific offenders in communities like Vancouver, Nanaimo and Terrace continue to be put back into community to attack people and businesses. The George Little House in Terrace has experienced multiple break-ins, with the most recent just occurring last month. During three of these break-ins, thieves brazenly stole artwork from local artists and badly damaged this beautiful heritage building. And this was all captured on video.
Debbie Letawski from George Little House says: “These incidents have caused considerable financial hardship and loss as well as taking an emotional and physical toll on my health and well-being.” This is what British Columbians are feeling. Boarded-up storefronts, violence and sleepless nights are not what the residents of B.C. deserve.
My question is for the Premier. What will it take for the Premier to abandon his catch-and-release justice system and finally deliver the public safety that he promised?
Hon. N. Sharma: We take public safety very seriously. We’ve taken unprecedented action as a government when it comes to standing up the programs, investing in the resources to address this issue. We know British Columbians deserve to feel safe in their communities.
My role, in a just system, is to make sure that we have the tools needed to address this issue, whether it’s the repeat offender initiative that we’re standing up in 12 hubs across this province, the bail reform policy that we’re calling and taking a leadership role on for the federal government or it’s the directive that we issued.
We’re also investing in things that are needed. We have a 32 percent increase in the Crown counsel budget, and that’s after the opposition starved it for years. We have 21 new dedicated Crown prosecutors that are part of repeat offenders response teams, and my colleague has put an unprecedented investment in RCMP officers throughout B.C.
We’ve taken action, and we’ll continue to take action on this issue.
L. Doerkson: The Attorney is right in suggesting that the residents of our province do deserve to feel safe.
What the people of British Columbia don’t understand is how it is possible to stab a resident of this province one day and be released the next?
The Premier has an obligation to keep the residents of this province safe. The NDP government has made many announcements, but they have made no progress whatsoever. Random attacks, violence and total disorder caused by prolific offenders continues, and not a single NDP announcement has made any difference.
What the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin don’t understand is why it’s not always in the public’s best interest to at least try and detain prolific offenders who commit violent crimes while on bail. Why only try and detain prolific offenders half of the time?
Hon. N. Sharma: We have the strictest bail policy, as I mentioned, in all of Canada. That bail policy sets out, under the federal law, the tools that are needed for Crown counsel to make their independent assessments and decide: is public safety at issue here? Is there something that undermines the public confidence of our justice system?
When they seek that detention, a majority of the time it’s denied. Clearly, it doesn’t matter how many times they seek…. What’s needed are changes to the Criminal Code, which is what I’ve been saying and what we’re taking action on and advocating with the federal government.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
REPEAT OFFENDERS AND
DIRECTIVE TO CROWN COUNSEL
S. Bond: Well, what the Attorney General knows is that you can’t keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
Instead of defending the current situation, what the Attorney General needs to do is revisit the directive that her government finally got around to issuing — to ensure that Crown seeks detention of a prolific offender who has committed a violent act while on bail every single time. That’s exactly what this Attorney General could and should do, and she knows it.
The fact of the matter is that British Columbians are worried about the explosion of violent crime and prolific offenders. And you can imagine their surprise when they found out, according to the government’s own data, that this government doesn’t even ask for detention in half of the cases where prolific offenders are involved.
It may be difficult for the Premier to accept, but blaming everyone else is inappropriate when the province fails to take action in half of all the cases involving repeat prolific offenders and they are committing crimes while they are on bail. The Attorney General knows she could do something about that.
In fact, we gave her a roadmap over a year ago about a directive that would have made a specific difference related to prolific offenders. Instead, they chose to do something else.
People are fed up with the never-ending violence in this province and this soft-on-crime Premier.
Today will the Attorney General do the right thing? Will she revisit the directive and ensure that when prolific offenders commit violent acts while they are on bail, that every single time, the Crown will seek detention?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to start by saying yes, we did receive a draft directive from the member opposite. Our lawyers looked at it, and it would have been unconstitutional. We have issued a directive that has resulted in the strictest bail policy in all of Canada.
The Crown counsel — I think two former Attorneys General have spoken and asked me questions, so they understand — makes independent charge assessments when it comes to it. But what we do know is when they are seeking detention, there’s an issue of public safety and public administration of a just system. When they seek that detention, the majority of the times it’s denied.
Our directive is a solid one. In fact, Saskatchewan has adopted it. But what’s clear with the preliminary data is we need changes to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, the fact of the matter is the Attorney General knows that the directive is not working. How can it not be in the public’s best interest when a prolific offender can stab someone one day and be out on the streets the next day, and this government doesn’t seek detention?
British Columbians just don’t believe that anymore. They are terrified to be in their communities. They don’t want to get on buses. They’re afraid to get on transit in British Columbia. It is time for this Attorney General and the soft-on-crime Premier to acknowledge…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh. Members.
S. Bond: …that something different must be done. British Columbians deserve that.
To the Attorney General, will she get up and commit to revisiting the directive that clearly is not working when a prolific offender can commit a crime while on bail and end up on the street the next day?
Hon. N. Sharma: I agree with the member opposite that something different does need to be done. The federal government needs to change the Criminal Code so that our justice system has better tools to address this challenge.
But as I mentioned before, we are using every tool in our toolkit to address this. We take it very seriously.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.
Hon. N. Sharma: That includes standing up a program that they cut in 2012 and making it better. That includes investing in our RCMP across this province…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. N. Sharma: …particularly in remote areas.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order. Members.
Member. Member will come to order. That’s enough.
Attorney General, do you want to conclude, please?
Hon. N. Sharma: Mr. Speaker, we’ll continue to do the work necessary to make this better for British Columbians.
[End of question period.]
Hon. M. Dean: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. Dean: During question period, we were joined in the gallery by some grade 6 and 7s from Shoreline Middle School. They were here with their teacher, Linda Stringer. They’ve only just left, so they’re somewhere in the precinct. Would you please make them very welcome.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I’ll call continued debate on the Committee of Supply of the Ministry of Housing.
In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for Ministry of Health.
In committee room C, continued debate on Committee of Supply for Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order.
We are presently dealing with the estimates for the Ministry of Housing.
I’ll call on the Minister of Housing to read the vote.
On Vote 33: ministry operations, $884,436,000 (continued).
J. Sturdy: This is more of an inquiry than anything else.
I have some constituents in my region who are interested in building affordable market seniors housing. I wondered if there were programs from the province or other places that the minister could suggest in terms of financing and accessing an opportunity to build that type of housing.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. The HousingHub…. There are opportunities. If the member would like to refer the individuals to my office, B.C. Housing can not only provide them information but also share with them federal programs that might be available to them as well.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. I’ll certainly do that.
If I might, as well, as a follow-up from some questions from my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano last week with regard to the opportunity to develop tiny homes as an alternative housing supply. The communities in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky — certainly in the corridor, Squamish and Pemberton, in particular — have expressed a real interest in the opportunity to provide tiny homes as an alternative housing source or as a lower-cost housing opportunity.
When I read the report provided by B.C. Housing from a number of years ago, it suggested that there may be an opportunity, as a result of the B.C. building code being updated for 2023, that tiny homes could be considered. I wondered if there were any initiatives on behalf of government to work them into the B.C. building code to allow local governments to at least consider them as an alternative housing source.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I shared with my opposition critic yesterday that there was a review done in 2016 to look at tiny homes. Some real issues were identified in having them, if it means compromising safety of individuals.
But I can share with the member that there are some prefab companies in B.C. that have now found a way to build tiny homes within the code as it is. If the member is interested in which companies those are, we can certainly connect him with those resources as well.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think it’s important there be an opportunity for people, for individuals, for owners to build their own accommodation. It is a common practice. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that to allow the creation of these homes that would be unsafe is an acceptable outcome.
I think just some guidance for communities, some consideration, at this point, in terms of a tiny home. Local government isn’t allowed to consider them because they’re not considered in the B.C. building code. So the idea of having these homes built in a facility as more of a…. What is it — an A277 or a Z240, the modular pieces? That’s fair enough, but that’s a different issue than a tiny home built by an individual or a family. Is there a way…?
I guess the question more specifically is: is the B.C. building code expected to be updated for 2023? I recognize that it’s probably in the purview of the Solicitor General. But is the B.C. building code actually going to be updated for 2023, as was expected, and will there be any consideration of tiny homes — even a definition, frankly — in the new code?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say to the member…. I shared with him the work that was done in 2016 around it at a national level, in particular. But we are going to be doing some engagement in the coming months. If the member wants to present some specific challenges that he’s heard from his constituents, certainly we would consider that in the work as we move forward.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Can we make sure that we get informed of when the consultation takes place? I’ll certainly want to participate in that.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for taking some more questions today during these estimates. We don’t have many more, but obviously, we have a few things we want to canvass on.
One specifically that the minister should be aware of, not far away from here, was in the media again today. I’m just curious on the minister’s thoughts. Residents at 2770 Claude Road in Langford have been evacuated again, on short notice, due to possible structural concerns. Concerns have been brought forward, I believe, through engineering, and geoscientists have done some investigative work on this.
Obviously, there are going to be a lot of people displaced. I believe there are up to 90 units in this facility. Now they’ve been told on short notice — basically a day, it sounds like — that they have to evacuate. Obviously, they’re looking for a place to live.
I guess my first question to the minister on this is: is this common? Does this happen quite often, where a residential complex that people are living in, especially a tower, a fairly new complex…? Is it quite common that people are given evacuation notices for safety like this?
Hon. R. Kahlon: As far as the province goes, no, it’s not common. It’s rare. In this case, my understanding is that the builder in question is covering costs for hotels for individuals. People can contact the RTB if they’ve got additional concerns. To this point, no one has. But that option is available if required.
M. Bernier: I think the minister can appreciate that in a stressful situation like this, on short notice, the people are panicking. They’re not necessarily going to be getting hold of the residential tenancy branch right away. Their main concern is their livelihoods, their families and where they’re going to put a pillow to be able to sleep tonight.
In fact, some of the quotes that I saw in the paper this morning…. Victoria Simms: “This is unreal. There’s a sense of panic.” Another person: “I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs; I am so mad.” Another person: “We’re told if we have insurance…. But looking into it, insurance won’t cover it.”
To the minister’s comments, the way it’s being reported — the minister might have more information he wants to share with this House — people were given basically an email saying that they could contact the facility manager and they would get up to $1,000 to help cover costs if they were going into a hotel room. I think the minister well knows that in this region right now, it could be upwards of $150 or $200 a night, easily, for a hotel room. Some of these people have pets that might not be allowed. Some people have family members that can’t fit into one room. I think the minister would know that that would only cover a couple of days.
I’m curious where the province is going to step in here. These families need support. They need help. Deferring them to the residential tenancy branch doesn’t help them right now, when they’re looking for a place to live, especially if there are not huge financial supports coming from the facility owner. We’re hearing, like I say, $1,000.
What action is the province…? What does the province and this minister see as their role to try to help these families right now in this situation?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I would be very frustrated as well. It is an awful situation for these individuals to be in. I know the previous incident that happened in Langford…. I believe it’s this particular site, where the city put up $300,000 to help accommodate the costs of individuals. The building code is enforced by the local government.
I would say…. It just happened yesterday. I understand that there is money being put up by the developer, and the city has a role. Certainly, I’ll be engaging with the mayor of Langford to just talk about what they’re going to do, how they’re going to support these individuals, and see how we can help some of those efforts as well.
M. Bernier: I appreciate that comment from the minister. It’s my understanding there was a problem with this specific building in 2019. There were engineers and geoscientists that were brought in to look at it. Obviously, there’s a concern, and I think we would all agree in this House that it’s all about public safety. I get that.
My first question to the minister: does this happen very often? Thankfully, as the minister acknowledged, no. This is rare. It doesn’t happen very often. Because of that, yes, I know…. Not taking away from the fact that this is a private development, this is not a government-funded B.C. Housing initiative or some other government-funded project, but in a case like this, I believe that there is a role that the minister can play.
This is a unique situation. If it is true that there is only about $1,000 being given to each person, first of all, that’s maybe a half month’s rent, if they can even find a place. There’s the stress with that. It doesn’t get you much in a hotel, as I mentioned. The minister said he’s reaching out. When is he scheduled, then, to speak to the mayor, Mayor Scott Goodmanson of Langford? When is he scheduled to speak to him, and what is he willing to offer the mayor to assist the residents in this facility?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t advise this House at this moment. The situation happened yesterday. My team is reaching out to the mayor to set up a time. We know that this process is going to be…. The city is going to have to play an important role. They went through the process of approving the project. We can look at different options, depending on what the city is going to do, but I think it’s important to note here that this is very much in the city’s domain, and we can play a supporting role.
The member asked what exactly we’re offering. I can’t say at this point, because we’re going to have to have a conversation with the mayor to see what their plan is first.
M. Bernier: Obviously, knowing how the procedure works to approve a development…. A municipality goes through the process when a permanent application comes in. We’re not going to get into that debate now, because I would argue the work is being done.
The city is doing the right thing. The report has come forward that says that this is not safe. The city, it sounds like, has shown the right leadership by making sure that they’ve removed the occupancy permits, which they’re forced fairly to do in order to make sure they have the safety of the residents as, obviously, paramount.
As I said, this is not rare. The minister says this is rare. I’m saying it’s rare that a situation like this happens. I think that deflecting it completely to the local government mostly, as the minister is trying to do, is probably, in a unique situation like this, not a fair approach. The city is going to need assistance. They are going to need some kind of help — remembering that that assistance is about the families. It’s about the people.
Dennis MacDonald lives in the building with his adult daughter, who has a son with autism. I think the minister can appreciate the stress that that’s putting on this family, a multigenerational family that’s just renting a place, trying to get by. Now the trauma that that’s going to put on this family, more specifically the young son with autism….
When we hear stories like that, that’s where I say that this is not just the city. This is not just the developer. This is going to take a community and this minister and government as part of that. I believe that they have a role to play to assist these families in, hopefully, just a short term. But we don’t know how long this could go on for. It could be, God forbid, a permanent situation, where these people will not be able to go back to their homes because of safety. Again, the minister plays a role in this, I believe.
It’s not just the phone call. Does the minister agree at least that the province should and will take an active role in ensuring that these people have a place to live?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I can’t imagine what these individuals are going through. I think the member knows very well that when there are emergencies, the province steps up to help. Terrace recently had a building that had a flood. All the people were displaced. We stepped up to support people. In North Vancouver recently, we had a fire. We stepped in to support people.
This situation is a little bit different in that (a) it’s unique and (b) it’s very much in the city’s domain. I’ve said to the member that we’ll be meeting with the mayor. We’ll reach out to the mayor. The mayor and council have not reached out to us for supports. It leads me to believe that they will again have a fund available, like they did last time, to support the individuals. Again, we’ll see what happens from the conversation.
Of course, from a provincial perspective, we always want to support people in the best way we can. But this was a building that’s been approved, had some issues. People were pulled out. I assume the city did some checks and ensured that the people could go back into the building again, gave another occupancy permit and now have identified another issue. We’ll see what happens from the conversation when we connect with the mayor and council.
M. Bernier: I do appreciate those comments. I just want to be clear that it’s not unique in the sense that people are struggling right now in the province of British Columbia to find affordable housing. So you can imagine the stress when we have the highest cost jurisdiction, in so many ways, right here in British Columbia. And when we look at the southern part of Vancouver Island, we can all agree the extra pressure and stress, when it comes to finding affordable housing — to be blunt, housing at all…. I think we can all agree and appreciate the pressure and the stress that these families, young and old, are now faced with.
I appreciate the minister’s willingness to deal with this. Again, I believe that there is a role that the government can play. We’ll be watching to see how this plays out, mostly for, obviously, the families that are affected, that if there are gaps with what the city can do and what the owner of the facility can do, because this is a rare and unique situation, the government will find a way to assist these people.
I think it’s probably fair to say that there’s not a lot of vacancy here in the southern part of the Island. There’s probably not a lot of vacancy in B.C. Housing or supportive housing units. There’s probably not a lot of vacancy in the hotels, frankly.
That’s the pressure and the stress that these families are under. There’s an expectation that government will take that seriously. I believe and I trust the minister that he will. But I will be watching to see how that plays out.
Now, in saying all that, I want to thank the minister. I want to thank the minister’s staff on behalf of all the colleagues on this side of the House that have availed of the opportunity to come forward and ask questions of the minister.
A big thank-you to our critic for Housing, who has allowed me the time to help, on her behalf, finish off today. I just want to thank, again, the minister and minister’s staff. This is quite a long set of estimates. I think it’s an important time to ask the questions, to have the dialogue, especially dealing with something that is so near and dear and important to people in British Columbia in every corner of the province.
Whether it’s the discussions around the stratas, the tiny homes, the affordable housing, the struggles of B.C. Housing, the fact that we still don’t have the audit released, we canvassed a lot of different issues here. We’re still waiting for answers, I guess, to some of those — understanding the situation that the government is in, trying to deal with the fact that we have the highest cost jurisdiction in all of North America when it comes to housing. I don’t see that getting better any time soon, unfortunately.
There’s a lot of work that this government is going to have to do because, over the last couple of years, it’s only going up. We’re asking these questions on behalf of the people in the province of British Columbia, the families, young and old, who are struggling to get into the housing market, and those that are fortunate to get into the housing market and to be able to stay in the housing market where they choose.
I do know that the minister agrees we want to see everybody flourish and survive and do well in the province of British Columbia, and avail themselves to acquire the housing that they so desire, whether that’s rental or market.
I’m not going to get into any other questions, other than, again, to thank the minister and his staff for all of the hours that we’ve had here talking about this important topic.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I also want to say thank you to the member across the way. Although we only got a chance to have a couple of hours between he and I, the opposition critic and I spent 14, 15 hours having this important conversation. I want to thank both of them, in particular the opposition critic for her thoughtful questions. I think it was a good exchange.
It was good use of public time to go through all of the things that are within the ministry, the work that B.C. Housing is doing. I think it reminds us why the homes for people strategy is going to be so important to ensure that we can build the affordable housing for people, not only for low-income families but also middle-income earners. I’m excited to advance many of those policies.
All of this requires a lot of work from staff. I’m fortunate to have an amazing team. Many of them are here behind me, and many of them are in another room ensuring that we have the answers that the opposition wants to ask. I want to say a big thank-you to them for all their work.
I want to thank the people at B.C. Housing, who do amazing work. We talked about a lot of crisis situations when there are issues that arise, and there are amazing people that step up and try to help and find creative solutions to support people. It’s not easy work, so I want to thank them. I want to thank my team here. Again, I look forward to, hopefully, estimates again next year.
With that, I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:29 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Heyman: I call second reading of Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, 2023.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 26 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING
(No. 5)
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
Deputy Speaker: The House will come to order. We’re dealing with Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act, 2023, second reading.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
I rise today to speak about Bill 26, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 2023. These proposed amendments would expediate the development of the Arbutus project in the city of Vancouver, providing much-needed supportive housing at 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue and 2091 West 8th Avenue in the city of Vancouver, also known as the Arbutus project.
The amendments proposed in this bill would, if passed, validate the previous public hearing process conducted by the city of Vancouver and addresses a request made by their city council for the province to legislatively intervene to move forward on the Arbutus project. It would also deem that rezoning bylaws previously approved in principle by the Vancouver city council be validly adopted. It would also provide for powers and duties to be exercised as if the bylaw had been adopted by the council under the Vancouver Charter. Finally, it would authorize the council to enter into a specified housing agreement without the need to adopt a bylaw.
These amendments are necessary to position the city to move forward with a project that would provide the much-needed homes for people living in Vancouver and directly in the community. The Arbutus project is envisioned to have a 129 mixed supportive and affordable housing developments in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of Vancouver.
The Arbutus project requires the rezoning of three lots. The city has previously undertaken the necessary rezoning bylaw amendments process under section 566 of the Vancouver Charter, including requirements that there be a public hearing prior to any rezoning or amendment to rezoning bylaws.
The public hearings occurred over six days in 2022, lasting more than 30 hours, where 300-plus community members participated. In addition, over 2,000 written submissions were received for the project. Following the public hearing process, the rezoning bylaw amendment application for the Arbutus project was approved in principle by the previous council on July 26, 2022.
Unfortunately, due to a court petition filed by a citizens’ group challenging the public hearing process and subsequent undertaking by the city, the city did not adopt the rezoning bylaw amendment at the time. Under these circumstances, the city has requested the province’s legislative intervention to move forward the Arbutus project.
The amendments proposed in this bill respond directly to the request from the city of Vancouver, position the Arbutus project to move forward and would help support the development of much-needed supportive housing in the community.
We are in a housing crisis in Vancouver and across the province, with too many people sleeping outside. We cannot afford to wait for these much-needed homes to be built.
M. de Jong: When I look at the legislation that’s tabled in the House, a lot of it is rudimentary, mundane and part and parcel of the administration of government — and a government that has grown as society’s expectations of government have grown.
Sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s legislation that is unique or seeks to chart a very different direction. I sometimes ask myself: “What’s the one word…?” Sometimes people ask me this: “What’s the one word that you might apply to a bill that comes before the House, where the government of the day is seeking to have it confirmed as law?”
In this case, the term I would use, and I don’t think it’s an exaggeration, is “extra ordinary.” I say it that way purposely, because when sometimes one says extraordinary, that is deemed to be entirely a positive reflection. I don’t think we can do that with this bill. It is extra ordinary, and I don’t think I’m being entirely flattering.
Over the course of the time allocated to me for making remarks, I’ll endeavour to explain why I believe it is extra ordinary and why, although the opposition is prepared to facilitate further discussion of the bill, support is by no means unqualified. Depending on what we learn about the bill, its provisions, of the rationale and the explanation offered by the government and the minister, that support may not materialize in the way that the government would wish.
Back to my word. There’s no question that the government seeks, by virtue of Bill 26, to deal with an extraordinary problem, and that is a housing situation that has gotten worse — that was bad and has steadily deteriorated. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that fact.
I believe, to be fair, that any government would have been challenged, confronted, by the circumstances that have materialized. I think it is equally fair for me to observe that despite some lofty promises five or six years ago — six or seven years ago now — the situation is worse and has gotten considerably worse. That’s not something that the government necessarily wants to hear people say or acknowledge.
I’m not, in the time available to me today, going to go on a lengthy dissertation or analysis of what is contributing to those factors. I will say this, however. This legislation and the direction it charts and the approach it takes are very different than the analysis that we heard from the now Premier and other members of the government some five, six or seven years ago.
The analysis we heard in those days rested entirely on their commentary around the nature of the demand. The blame, I think, that was assigned at that time — the negative influence of foreigners, of foreign purchases into the market, what that was doing to pricing….
That formed the core of what the members of the governing party — prior to becoming government, and for years as government — claimed publicly, at least, to be at the heart of their housing strategy. Along the way, there was no shortage of people who made the case — yes, I was one of them — that what we were confronted by was a supply problem.
Remember, the Premier was the Housing Minister for virtually the entire time leading up to his assuming the Office of the Premier. Only recently has there been any acknowledgment on the part of the government and the Premier that throughout this period, what really stood in the way of addressing the housing and affordable housing issue was supply. Housing cannot and will not be affordable if it’s not available. That has formed the crux of the challenge that British Columbians have been facing for some time.
I will, as I have done occasionally in the past…. I remember, in 2017, contacting the then mayor of Vancouver, who had just been on the radio, decrying the state of housing and speaking with some vigour about the developing housing crisis. I had a previously scheduled call. It was just coincidental to him being on the radio, but when I spoke with him, I asked him: “Well, Your Worship, how many units of housing are there pending applications for in Metro Vancouver?”
There was silence on the other end of the line. “What do you mean?” I said: “Well, people make applications to build housing, and I have just heard you speak with some passion about the crisis in housing, its affordability and, presumably, its availability. These are units of housing that people want to build and that would address, in part, that problem. So how many are there?” And he said, somewhat to my surprise: “Well, I have no idea.”
I said: “Well, for heaven’s sake, the challenge is real. I believe it relates to the availability of housing. I think you understand that that plays a role. Wouldn’t that be the place to start — to ask yourself: ‘How many housing units does the private sector want to build?’ That doesn’t involve any public money.”
I tell that anecdote because it is, for me, indicative of an attitude that has prevailed for many, many years — until, perhaps, just recently — and has stood in the path of meaningfully addressing the question of housing availability and, by extension, housing affordability.
There’s a secondary component to this, because whilst I believe there is — or was, at least; I think, sadly, this is changing — ample enthusiasm, within the private sector, to work as partners to address the question of housing availability and, therefore, affordability, I am prepared to concede that the private sector is in the business of building housing not as a charitable endeavour, and seek to do so on the basis of securing a reasonable return, which is a polite way of saying that they want to make a few bucks doing it.
That’s fine, but it does mean there is a group of people for whom that housing may perpetually be out of reach. So when we talk about “affordable housing” and then, one step beyond that, “supportive affordable housing,” I think we have to acknowledge and accept that there is going to be a role for government to play within the housing market to address that segment of our population and the unique needs that they have.
The problem that has developed on that front, as I see it, is that when the government talks about supportive housing, my notion — and, I think, the notion of many of my colleagues on the opposition — of what constitutes “supportive housing” seems to be very different from what the government believes qualifies as “supportive housing.” Or at least, there’s a difference between what they say and what materializes in fact.
I think, over the years now, that that has bred and produced some suspicion on the part of local governments and on the part of residents and citizens, who listen carefully, who understand that there is a need to provide and that there is a role for government to play in affordable housing — and, particularly, a role for government to play with respect to affordable supportive housing.
People also want to know that the government can be trusted to deliver on what they say will be part and parcel of those supportive housing projects. The track record is not an enviable one, I’m obliged to say, for this government.
The number of examples of projects where the government has said to a community, said to a neighbourhood, “This is what this supportive housing project will include” — only for those people to discover, after the fact, that none of those wraparound services are actually present in a meaningful way, in a practical way — has bred this suspicion, which is manifesting itself now in opposition. The challenge is associated with assisting people who have suffered from addiction, are suffering from addiction, are the victims of abuse, who require supports.
Look, I accept that everyone in this House understands this. Someone in dire circumstances who lacks…. Or the term “the wheels come off….” It doesn’t generally always happen at two o’clock in the afternoon. It’s more likely to occur, or can occur, at two o’clock in the morning, and supports that are built around an eight-hour workday don’t cut it. Those are not supports that are going to be present when the client, the recipient — the resident, in the case of supportive housing — requires that service.
There is this underlying suspicion and concern where the government speaks of projects and of their commitment to providing the wraparound services that will alleviate the likelihood of an individual succumbing to addictions and then demonstrating erratic or — regrettably, in some instances — dangerous behaviour. It’s why people are concerned and, given the track record of the government, legitimately concerned. Those are factors that need to be taken into account when the government seeks to intervene in the manner in which it is purporting to do in this case.
Now there’s a secondary component. I’ve talked about the extraordinary nature of the challenge that we face, government faces, indeed, society faces. I might use that word again. The government has chosen to respond, in this instance, with this project in an extraordinary way.
What do I mean by that? I’m a little bit surprised that the…. Or maybe I’m not surprised. I would have thought that the Minister of Housing, who has introduced the legislation, would have acknowledged this in his second reading remarks.
The project is contentious. The legislation is here because it’s contentious. That contentiousness has now revealed itself in the matter being brought before the courts, as I understand it.
In clause 2 of the bill that’s before the House now, the government seeks to do something truly extraordinary. I do think it’s important that the minister, and maybe he’ll do this when we conclude the second reading and in his concluding remarks…. The government is seeking to truncate the rights that citizens have to refer these matters to the courts.
Now, look, it’s not the first time that has ever happened in this chamber. I was part of a government, I think on one or two occasions, that intervened to limit access to the courts. But it is extraordinary.
The government must make the case for why that extraordinary step to eliminate what would otherwise be due process is justified in this case. Because the bill says, in effect, even if the courts were to find that due process through the bylaw enactment stages has not been followed and the bylaws were deemed to be struck down or unenforceable…. This piece of legislation says to those who have brought that review, that petition, that judicial review: “Too bad. We don’t care.”
As I say, in a society that is built around the principle of due process and the rule of law, it is for the government to demonstrate that that is justified. I’m not sure they can, but they’re going to have to, because there are going to be pointed questions when this bill goes to committee about what justifies such a dramatic intervention in what would otherwise be the due process and the opportunity to review the bill.
I’m alive to the hour, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure my comments will go on much longer. So if you’ll permit me another couple….
Interjections.
M. de Jong: All to say, whilst the opposition is prepared to facilitate movement of the bill, the government has picked this project out and chosen to deal with it in an extraordinary way to limit due process, as it were. That is very different than developing a broad policy framework around which supportive housing projects can be developed, where everyone understands what the rules of the game are and conduct themselves accordingly. That is not what is taking place here. For the government to pick and choose, as apparently it is now intent upon doing, in the way Bill 26 lays out, is certainly worrisome.
Yes, there is a need for supportive housing. Yes, there is a need to get on with ensuring these supportive housing projects are available and the housing units are available to people. But the manner in which the government is choosing to do so in this instance warrants very close scrutiny.
Quite frankly, it has the opposition suspicious, and that suspicion will reveal itself during the committee stage debate. As I say, the government should not assume or take for granted ultimate support from the opposition for the provisions of Bill 26.
M. Lee: I’m happy to commence my remarks, but I’m also happy to note the hour.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
M. Lee: Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment of the debate.
M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Heyman moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:05 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.
We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $28,526,258,000 (continued).
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Chair, with your permission, I’ll just continue, because we left yesterday afternoon with a question by the member for Prince George–Valemount. I just wanted to give some context to that question, which may frame the debate for this morning’s session.
The member was asking about the capital funding envelope for long-term care. As the member knows — I talked about this last year, I believe — the capital funding envelope for long-term-care renewal and expansion was notionally approved at $1.3 billion. We talked about that last year.
This envelope has increased as part of this budget to over $2 billion — $2.039 billion to be exact, so just over $2 billion. The member will see, in the projects over $50 million, two projects that were announced. The Western Communities project, which is $224 million, $157 million of which is provincial funding…. She will know that outside of the TransLink area, that funding is shared. And the St. Vincent’s Heather care home in Vancouver, which is owned by Providence Health Care but is integrated into our health care system, is $207 million, which is all provincial funding.
So of that $2 billion, if you’re looking at that, those two projects have been allocated, and I would expect, in the few weeks to follow us now, a significant number of allocation announcements to be made. That number is $364 million.
I’ll say, and I said this yesterday, by comparison from fiscal year 2009-10 to fiscal year 2016-17, the total provincial capital investment in health authority–owned long-term care, which includes Providence, was $17.6 million — not billion, $17.6 million.
I just want to put in context why it’s important, and I’ll get to the other numbers the member asked for as well. We see issues such as multi-bed rooms. I think the member indicated she would be asking about that, so I won’t get into that now. But that’s a significant goal and priority. But if you look at the 127 long-term-care buildings that are owned by health authorities, 45 of them were built before 1980, and 17 were built prior to 1970, which makes them at least 53 years old.
The aggregate facility condition index. I talked about this yesterday, in response to the hon. member’s question. I think I was talking about my challenge in understanding the facility condition index. But just so that people watching us know, an excellent score is basically zero. The best possible score is zero, and the worst possible score is one, under that. The facility condition indexes are very poor in a significant number of these cases. In fact, 47 of our health authority–owned and –operated care homes have a facility condition index that’s in the very poor category.
I’d make two points. First, that the need to respond and to move forward…. So $2 billion is a lot of money, of course, and we will need to invest that and more in the future, to address this situation but also to address existing demand. We currently have — and this only includes St. Vincent’s and Colwood, those two projects, the West Shore projects — 18 projects in flight right now, 12 under construction and six in preconstruction.
These projects…. The member, I think, asked for the detail on this about what’s replacement and what’s incremental. On those projects, 1,257 replace old and outdated beds. If you look at that number, 1,210 are net new beds, of which 1,155 are public beds. Sometimes when we have contracted processes, there’s a small number of beds that are reserved as private beds, and that has typically been the case in the way we develop those projects.
When we add those numbers, that only includes the two projects I talked about. Incremental to that will be the remaining roughly $1.6 billion in spending, which will be in addition to those 2,467 incremental beds.
I think it’s fair to say…. This is, I guess, the political part of it. And we got this yesterday. The members for Peace River North and Kootenay East and from Delta talked about health authority–owned and –operated projects that required either replacement or addition, and so on, and that’s true.
I think it’s fair to say that people were let down in the period after 2009, and it hasn’t picked up sufficiently in my period. We understand we have a responsibility. If you’re spending almost nothing on long-term-care capital when you have a facility condition index and long-standing capital infrastructure like that, as occurred between ’09 and ’17, and then we picked it up somewhat but still not enough to match that demand in the interim period, you’re going to have a significant list of projects, including in Fort St. John, including in Quesnel, including in Cranbrook, including in Delta.
I’m anticipating my friend from Cariboo North asking me about Dunrovin Lodge, but maybe I’m anticipating too much.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: Now you will. But people should know, whether she does or not, that’s a subject that she and I discuss on a regular basis.
So that failure to invest in the past has led to that infrastructure issue, and there’s a very significant demand, as the member highlighted yesterday, and an increasing population of seniors and others who need long-term care.
S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I’m hoping that we can find a way to work our way perhaps a bit more succinctly through these questions. That was 12 minutes, and every 12 minutes counts. I will also resist the temptation I have to be partisan. We’ve just been through the most partisan part of the day, and I don’t want to start there in estimates.
What I do know is this. The context of the question was that we need 10,000 long-term-care beds in the next decade. So what I’ve asked the minister to do for me…. And I hear the details around this project and that project. Can the minister provide for me a plan that indicates how we are going to get 10,000 long-term-care beds in the next decade? Is there a plan that can tell me what region, how many beds, what the need is and what’s going to be spent on them?
Hon. A. Dix: In terms of the ten-year capital plan, what I told the member was that we’ve added to that long-term-care capital plan. At our last discussion, I think the number was $1.3 billion. So we’ve added…. It’s now, I think, $2.039 billion. Let me just…. Yes, $2.039 billion. So that is a significant increase. It’s not, of course, the only way that we increase the long-term-care capital, and some of that will be for the replacement of existing beds.
So where we’ve gone is from not having a long-term-care capital plan to having one that sees an unprecedented investment. So that is the health authority–owned and –operated side of the plan.
As part of our seniors strategy, in a broad sense, we have other elements that include working with not-for-profit and for-profit providers to increase capacity in those places, also recognizing that some of the FCIs in those facilities require action as well. In addition, of course, significant investment in home and community care, because I don’t think there will be a debate from different people about how many beds we need. But from my perspective, in the immediate, we need more, and that’s why thousands of beds are under construction. Through the $2 billion that has been allocated in this 2023 budget, many more will be as well.
In terms of the numbers of those beds, the member can expect to see those projects announced. And that number, which is currently 2,467 — remember, those are under construction now — will be added to significantly.
S. Bond: Again, to the minister, it’s a very straightforward question. I understand that there are projects here and this has been announced. In fact, the minister committed to 2,400 beds that have been approved today. I have been unable to figure out how many have been announced and where they all are.
The seniors advocate’s report is excellent in pointing out that people in British Columbia are relatively healthy until they’re 80 years old, and then the need increases incrementally. The comment in her latest monitoring report is that we’ve not yet begun to feel the pressure of that aging demographic. Surely to goodness, the Health Ministry has a plan that is a document and that says we need 10,000 beds. The Conference Board of Canada, B.C. Care Providers — everyone looking at those numbers agrees that we need 10,000 beds over the next decade.
Is there a plan, a document, a piece of paper, that says: “Here’s how many we need. Here’s how much money…”? Investments are appreciated, but they have to be attached to a strategic plan that gives British Columbians confidence that somehow, seniors in this province are going to have a long-term-care bed when they need it. Is there an overarching plan the minister can table with me today?
Hon. A. Dix: In response to the first question — I think it’s a good one — I’m going to do this really quickly, but the member asked for this: what are the projects I’m talking about.
There are 18 projects currently in flight. This isn’t a plan; these are happening right now. I’ll share this with the members; they don’t have to write it down and everything else. Twelve are under construction, and six are under preconstruction.
In that list, and this doesn’t include the vast majority of the $2 billion plan that we have, there are the following HA capital projects at West Shore, which is Colwood, and I referred to that before; St. Vincent’s Heather, which is in Vancouver; Dogwood Lodge, which is in Vancouver. Two are with contracted partners that own the land, but we’re the tenant. That’s the project in Nelson, which is part of a 495-bed initiative with Interior Health; and then the Chénchenstway project in Burnaby, which people will remember is the New Vista project. We supported New Vista in building a new non-profit project there, and we’re using the existing site.
Six are with contracted non-profit partners, six are with contracted for-profit partners. One, the one in Penticton, is searching for land, and the contracted partner is to be determined. Those are the beds, and that’s the 2,467.
That doesn’t include the vast majority of the investment that we’re now making in this year’s budget, which is a $2.039 billion net investment. Obviously, that’s a plan to significantly address issues of declining facility condition in long-term care and increase the number of beds. That’s what we’re expecting to do. As we lay that out, really, in the next few weeks, the member will see that.
We also have a seniors strategy, which has been the subject of a very significant investment. We’ve already talked about some of that. I won’t give a long description of that. We’ve already talked about what we’ve laid out. This is a significant component of that, meaning we’ve gone from a period in which we spent nothing on long-term care to a period when we’re spending dramatically on long-term care.
The member is right that there will be more demand for long-term care in the next decade than is currently funded in this budget. It will require further lifts in further years and increases in investments to reach those goals, but this is a substantial, breathtaking, sea change in the way that we deal with long-term care. It reflects a strategy that says: we’ve got to address single bedrooms, and we’ve got to address the facility condition index. When we do that, we have to increase bed capacity, because we have to do all three things.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. The bottom line is that we need to see an overarching plan that looks at a strategy to get to 10,000 additional new beds, not replacement beds, because we know the demand is coming. We’ll continue to look at those numbers, and we’ll certainly have additional questions in the future to the minister, but I need to move on.
I wanted to back up for one moment, and I won’t ask for the answer, but I’m just going to put it on the record. The minister yesterday referenced a long-term-care monitoring tool which had been created in order to deal with the new funding formula. We have yet to be able to verify that it’s actually in use. The minister said yesterday that it was.
I’d like the minister if he could, at some point during the day, to come back and let me know where it’s in use, because we’re certainly hearing from people in the provider world that that is actually not the case. So if we could go back to that at some point.
I do want to move on, though. I want to get to the issue of multi-bed rooms. The election promise made by this government was to eliminate multi-bed rooms in health authority–owned long-term-care facilities, giving seniors more dignity. Obviously, we agree that that’s important. We also saw the impacts of multi-bed rooms during the pandemic.
I’m wondering if the minister can give me an update. That was in 2022. I’m wondering if I could get specific answers to these questions: has the scoping of the work been completed, and has any preliminary work been done to determine whether there is additional funding that’s going to be required? Just a status update on the promise made to eliminate multi-bed rooms.
Hon. A. Dix: Maybe what I’ll do is just take the member through where we sit right now so we have a common understanding of where we are.
In terms of rooms in British Columbia, and multi-bed rooms, the vast majority of rooms, of course, are single-bed rooms in our province — single-occupancy rooms. If you look at that provincewide, that number was 87 percent in 2018 — essentially, in the start of this period of government — and has increased now to 90.3 percent. So we were 12 percent short. We reduced that by 25 percent of that 12 percent. That’s the progress we’ve made in terms of single-occupancy rooms.
But as everyone knows who understands the meaning of “single-occupancy room,” that means that we’ve gone from about 72 percent of people living in single-occupancy rooms, because obviously, if you’re in a multi-bed room, a four- or six-bed room, then that accounts for more people per room. So that’s the reason for the difference between those numbers.
We are making progress, and we’ve made significant investments. One is the Chénchenstway project, which is at New Vista. The intent of that is to reduce, at a number of other facilities where there are very high numbers of multi-bed rooms, some of which faced very challenging periods during the pandemic, including long-term-care sites like Mount Saint Joseph’s and others, which had a lot of multi-bed rooms…. To use those new beds to deal with the multi-bed-room issue. That’s what we’ve been doing there.
Just to put that in context, if you look at the rooms now, as I said, 90.3 percent of the rooms are single-occupancy, 6.6 percent of the rooms are double-occupancy, and 3.1 percent of all rooms are multi-bed occupancy. Both those have been reduced: the multi-bed occupancy from 4 percent to 3 percent, the double-occupancy rooms from 8.3 percent to 6.6 percent in that period. And they’ve been reduced in every single year.
One of the goals of the major capital investment we’re seeing is to take that action…. The member will see that a significant number of those are replacement rooms, and the approach is, when we replace rooms in a facility…. Typically, our older facilities have more multi-bed rooms because of the nature of long-term care at that time, in the late ’60s — those that were built in the ’60s, those built in the ’70s, those built in the ’80s. As we replace them, we’re going to see that number continue to reduce, and we’re taking action now on specific sites to reduce the number of multi-bed rooms.
Now, the New Vista Chénchenstway project was an innovative one of health authorities who came together — including Providence Health Care, but Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health — to do just that. The care home would move from one facility to another. And in COVID, we made the decision to maintain the existing facility and then use those rooms, upgraded, once the move had been made to the new New Vista. So that’s an example of the work we’re doing.
We’ve made, I think, progress year unto year, and we’re going to make progress year unto year to address that. Single-bed rooms, a facility condition index and, of course, the need for new beds are three of the significant considerations when we’re making decisions about health care capital, including the projects mentioned by hon. members yesterday.
S. Bond: I know I don’t need to remind the minister, but I will, that that was a very specific promise made in 2020 — that multi-bed rooms would be eliminated. It wasn’t: “We’re going to make progress.” It was: “They are going to be eliminated.”
It also raises the issue…. I don’t have time to debate that at the moment. What’s critical about the 10,000 beds we need…. Those are incremental, new capacity.
When you think about using a replacement bed to take care of a promise related to multi-bed rooms…. We need to make sure that we’re adding incrementally to get to 10,000 beds. It’s not as simple as…. We’re going to replace multi-bed rooms, and we’re going to use replacement beds for that.
We have a big challenge in long-term care. We have an aging demographic that actually needs to be treated with respect and dignity.
We raised this issue yesterday, in terms of alternate level of care patients. Again, I would very much appreciate the specific information that the minister has about the 23 days, in terms of an alternate level of care patient getting in long-term care. That is not at all what we are hearing on the ground. We are hearing that there are potentially months, if not longer, that alternate level of care patients are staying in hospitals because there is nowhere else for them to go. So complex issues.
Certainly, the numbers require significant action. I appreciate the minister’s comments on investments that are being made, but we need to see a plan that has an end point to the promise made by the government in 2020 to eliminate multi-bed rooms and, also, a plan that says: “We understand that we need 10,000 net new beds over the next decade.” I think British Columbians would expect there to be a systematic, thoughtful, laid-out plan that would demonstrate where, when, how many of those beds, where they’re coming.
I appreciate knowing that the investment has gone up, but we certainly want to see those plans articulated.
I’m going to move on to seismic upgrades. Those are also important. The ministry’s own information talks about overall infrastructure in the seniors care sector. It basically says that 63 percent of non-government care homes need to be renovated, and 10.5 percent of non-government care homes need to be rebuilt.
Can the minister tell me what work has been done to assess the need for seismic upgrades in seniors homes?
Hon. A. Dix: There are a couple of indexes to talk about. One is the facility condition index, which we’ve talked about already. I’ve described the impact of that on investment and why there needs to be that investment. There’s also a seismic priority index.
The member is correct. We don’t have a separate program for the seismic and facility condition index. Education has that approach, as the member will know, for their projects. We don’t have that separately. It’s considered as we address our overall capital plan for long-term care. So those are among the considerations, the facility condition index and the seismic priority index, when those decisions are made.
It is somewhat more challenging, I would say. That’s why, typically, when we’re dealing with seismic issues, we’re replacing an existing care facility and then transferring.
We’ve had a case in B.C.… Essentially, in long-term care, we’re at…. We keep our long-term-care homes at 100 percent capacity, or close to that, as the member would imagine.
There’s not a case of transferring patients from one facility to another and then making internal fixes to a project. Typically, what we do when we’re dealing with seismic is we have a list of projects from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s that were built, and we need to replace them. We do have those indexed, and seismic is a consideration, but in terms of our long-term-care capital plan, it’s one project.
We also are working with the sector, both in small ways and big ways, through the B.C. Care Providers. We haven’t announced it yet, but their program to make minor improvements is being supported and continuing to be supported. It was started under the previous government, I think, in 2016-17. And as a happy coincidence — and it truly is a coincidence, a good thing — the member will know that the present CEO of the Care Providers was the Minister of Health when the program was created. That is being extended and supported.
In terms of dealing with seismic issues on both sides, those are a consideration, but they’re considered with the facility condition index, as described before.
S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answers.
I want to spend a couple of minutes on the facility condition index, fondly known as FCI. In fact, when you look at the list of long-term-care facilities, 38 long-term-care facilities in B.C. have a facility condition index of 0.6 or higher. If you include all facilities over 0.5, that’s another 28 facilities, for a total of 66 facilities for which the repair cost is 50 percent of the replacement cost.
Now, if we want to use a controversial comparison — but we will use it — when we were looking at the Royal B.C. Museum, the government said that it was necessary to do a complete teardown when the FCI was 0.35. We have at least 66 facilities, long-term-care facilities, for which the repair cost is 50 percent of the replacement cost.
So can the minister tell me whether or not an assessment of all long-term-care facilities that have an FCI ratio over 0.5 and greater has been completed, and what is the estimated cost to replace those facilities?
Hon. A. Dix: Yes, we’ve done an FCI analysis of all the facilities. I think the member may have older data. When I was listing off the numbers, I think it was actually higher — that are 0.6 or higher. I have 47 buildings, not 38, just so the member will know that.
As I noted, if you look to understand why that would be the case…. People would say: “Well, what’s happening with those buildings?” The average age of health authority–owned long-term-care homes is 37 years.
We’ve had this discussion. I’ve made this point about the lack of investment in the past not having been a good thing. And that’s not just one government, by the way; that’s others, right? But this was an issue. The determination was made, and it was a public policy determination, to focus on new builds in the contracted sector. That was the determination, and now we’re dealing with a significant issue.
If you look at just these issues, in every case that analysis is done. So everyone understands, 0.6 is very poor, 0.3 to 0.6 is poor. That’s why the discussion of the Royal B.C. Museum was what it was.
The situation, I should say, is not dissimilar…. And we do this work in support of our non-profit partners, for example, who tend to have older facilities. The for-profit sector has grown in the last number of years, but there are….
To look at the 90 licensed facilities owned by non-profit partners — this is beyond the description I gave — 42 opened prior to 2000; 32 opened prior to 1990; 15 opened prior to 1980, which means they’re at least 40 years old.
To look at the 90 licensed facilities owned by non-profit partners — this is beyond the description I gave — 42 opened prior to 2000, and 32 opened prior to 1990. And 15 opened prior to 1980, which means they’re at least 40 years old.
This is not just an issue with the health authority–owned and –operated; it’s also an issue for a significant number of care homes in our non-profit sector that will require a significant investment in the coming years on the existing…. I agree with the member. That means that you have to look at those elements of replacing existing buildings — or upgrading, but probably replacing many of those existing buildings — especially the ones built prior to 1980, and, while you’re doing that, increasing capacity. The member is right in that respect.
There’s a detailed response on FCI, which I’m going to save the member, about how one calculates these things. Just to say that detailed analysis is made in every case. Part of the challenge…. This is especially true, why we….
Someone asked yesterday about why we’re doing Colwood as opposed to something else. In the last 23 years, there have been three new HA facilities opened on Island Health, for a total of 231 beds. As the member says, that’s not going to get it done over time, and it puts us more in deficit in terms of the replacement beds we have to do. You see, in the numbers I gave to the member, how significant that number is as a share of the beds we’re building now.
S. Bond: The minister is correct. The list that I have, as a result of an extremely long wait for FOI, was May of 2022. I’m happy to have refreshed information from the minister rather than wait an eternity through FOI.
I’m wondering if the minister could tell me if…. When we look at FCI and we look at the condition of long-term care facilities, every year that we defer a replacement plan…. Does the ministry look at what the increased cost of that deferment would be?
Hon. A. Dix: Two things. There are always cost escalations for the projects themselves. We’ve seen that dramatically in the last number of years, and we’ll be having, I’m sure, further discussions of that when we talk about the overall capital plan of Health.
I think it’s fair to say that now decades of deferments have increased the cost significantly. That is a consideration. It’s why we have to act and why we are acting. Members are going to see…. I work, as you know, with members across the Legislature who are advocates for these projects, so we’re going to see them together, in some cases, the changes we’ve made.
What I can say is that it’s not enough in the sense that we’re not responding in every single case where needs require, even within a $2.039 billion budget. So yes, when you defer, it costs more, because there’s cost escalation and because….
It’s principally because there’s cost escalation in the construction, because some of our most challenged buildings — if you think, for your members from Kelowna, of Cottonwoods, for example — are not really upgradable, in the sense that they need to be, essentially, replaced. So the increase in cost is the cost escalation.
But there’s a further question, which is the cost for those living in long-term care, who only live a relatively shorter period in long-term care because of the circumstances of their health. They’re living in those facilities now, so there is cost for them that we don’t measure in these terms but is still significant.
S. Bond: I certainly recognize that deferral of a project likely means escalation in cost. My point was that as we look at facilities and look at the ratings, there comes a point where you have to balance. I didn’t mean that it has to be…. It wasn’t directly to the minister.
There is that balance in terms of deciding when you’re actually going to make a decision to replace versus continuing deferral because of the increase in costs. So I’m assuming the ministry monitors that carefully and then makes a decision about when to move from deferral to actually replacing.
I think it’s just important that we have on the record the fact that there are a significant number of long-term-care facilities that are at the point where it is 50-50 in terms of repair or replacement. That’s an important consideration in the overarching look at capacity.
I want to move on to health care standards and, basically, direct care hours. But I want to just articulate my significant concern about the lack of capacity that we have to manage the aging demographic.
One of the things we can be very grateful for is there’s a very healthy population in British Columbia. Most seniors prefer to live in community wherever possible. We’re going to get to home care in a moment in terms of how we support people staying in community, but we have a big challenge ahead of us.
Government has to face that at least 10,000 beds are required. That is new. It is not replacement. It isn’t making sure we have fewer multi-bed rooms. We have a big challenge ahead of us.
In addition to that, we have to talk about how we care for seniors. I know this government has increased the hours of care. But the new national standard, while it is not prescriptive…. We’ve had this discussion already. They actually use as an example…. A minimum level of acceptable care, looking at a number of studies, is actually…. They cite the number 4.1 hours.
We’ve seen that the Ontario government is increasing the hours of direct care to an average of four hours per resident. The government of Alberta is recommending up to 4.5 hours over four years. They’re going to make that transition. Currently, and the minister can correct me if I’m incorrect, B.C. looks at an average of 3.36 hours of care when you include allied health.
One of my concerns is that there’s no longer a performance measure in the service plan to demonstrate where the government intends to go on hours of care. Last year the service plan showed that the ministry’s intent was to hold at 3.36 hours of direct care through to 2024-2025.
Can the minister speak to what the government’s intention is when it comes to how we line up against other provinces? We are seeing significant movement in other provinces. I’m wondering what the plan is in British Columbia to move beyond the 3.36 hours of care per day.
With the minister’s indulgence, we can come back to direct hours of care. I have a colleague that has one question related to infrastructure, and we aren’t going to have the opportunity to go back there. So if I could ask the minister to recognize my colleague for one question, and then, after the break, we can come back to direct care.
J. Sturdy: Thank you to my colleague for allowing me to ask a question.
I’m sure the minister is familiar with the situation in West Vancouver, where we’ve lost several hundred long-term-care beds over the last number of years. There’s a proposal from the non-profit Baptist Housing Society from the Inglewood Care facility to significantly expand that facility, which is over 60 years old at this point, with, I think, 230 beds, mostly multi-bed rooms, I believe. It’s really time to upgrade this facility, given that we’ve lost so many beds on the North Shore, certainly on the West Vancouver side.
Could the minister help me understand what government’s commitment is to that proposal at this point, if any?
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just say it is, I think, a high-priority project, a project that we support strongly. What they’re seeing, I think, and I don’t want…. It’s in some ways their business and what they’re working for. What they’re seeing is the kind of escalation in capital costs that we’re seeing elsewhere. We’re working with them, and Vancouver Coastal Health is working with them on that. It’s an important project.
Obviously, we have other projects and work in mind on the North Shore, broadly, from across the communities because there is an increasing seniors population, increasing need for that care. In any event, as we’ve been discussing here, we need to not lose beds when we’re trying to gain beds and to replace beds that are too old, as is the case at Inglewood. It’s a project we support. It’s a project that’s going forward, we believe.
I think the issue there is that the proponents of the project are dealing with the same thing that, in fact, health authorities are seeing, which is a significant increased cost. Just to be clear, we’re working with them on that and continue to be. We’re hopeful that we get those beds built. We need to get them built at Inglewood.
I want to thank the member for his questions.
Briefly, I’ll say, on the 3.36, we went to 3.51 this year. So we exceeded that target. What I’d commit to do is simply…. Sometimes the target is in the service plan. Part of the reason why that target was not put in the service plan…. We wanted to bring in some other targets which are helpful for the public to look at the progress of issues. We had driven that project to achieve the goal that we wanted to achieve, which is the government’s 3.36 commitment, which had been made in 2007 or 2008. We wanted to make that. We made a major effort. We funded it. We’ve talked about it in multiple estimates.
Part of the reason it came down from that…. What I’d commit to the member to do is simply, of those targets that are not in the service plan, to provide that information so that the opposition and everyone else continues to have that. The intention was not to remove that, for it not to be assessed. It’s just that we had met our target in that case. So continuing to talk about it as an aspiration to get better when it wasn’t an aspiration, necessarily, was the reason we made that decision. But that’s easily done. We’re at 3.51 this year. I think the member has rightly identified…. And we’re certainly looking at that, as we look at the discussion with standards, looking at what other jurisdictions are doing.
Just to put it in context, I think it was in the neighbourhood of — I’ll have to get the numbers — $250 million to go from 3.11 to 3.36. That was the estimated thing. We’ve gone beyond that. The reason we’ve gone beyond that is the success of the age-cap program. But I’ll have more to say on that. I think we’re past our time.
Hon. Chair, you’re looking at me expectantly, saying: “Why doesn’t he just read this following motion?” It’s that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTIONS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order.
We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 39: ministry operations, $26,715,000 (continued).
E. Sturko: Good morning, everybody.
I want to go back to the 123 youth beds for a clarification, please. In reviewing that previous answer…. Of the 123 beds, 32 are operational; 51 are contracted and in the start-up process; 47 remain completely outstanding. Then the minister noted that 60 percent of those beds will be up by 2023.
Can she please clarify. Is it 60 percent of the 123 beds or 60 percent of the 51 that are contracted? Which of those numbers is it?,
Hon. J. Whiteside: The 60 percent refers to 60 percent of the 123, of the total number of beds.
E. Sturko: I appreciate that clarification. I just have another clarifying question that I wanted to ask. This time I’m going to ask about publicly supplied addictive drugs that are prescribed by health care providers.
The minister had previously said that the goal of publicly supplied addictive drugs is to separate people from the toxic drug supply. Of those who currently receive prescriptions and are given publicly supplied addictive drugs, how many have completely stopped using illicit sources, and how many are still using street-sourced drugs? Are there statistics on how many people have actually been separated from a toxic drug supply?
Hon. J. Whiteside: With respect to individuals who are enrolled in prescribed safe supply programs, I’ll just remind folks that we got here through the risk mitigation guidance that was issued by public health in the early days of COVID. Of course, the risk that we were mitigating at that time was the impact of COVID, which was driving those who use drugs to isolate, to use alone. COVID prevented, obviously, people from being able to gather. So there was a serious concern about the impact of those conditions, given the toxicity of the drug supply.
What we understand that physicians are finding, as we are still in the fairly early days of this work, is a reduced risk of death and harm for those individuals who are using prescribed safer supply. There is comprehensive evaluation underway, as we were requested to do by the select standing committee, to continue on scaling up prescribed safer supply, continuing with the evaluation.
But researchers are not able to definitively say that individuals who are enrolled in prescribed safer supply aren’t also using other sources.
E. Sturko: I thank the minister for that response. This goes back to the mission statement of providing effective and responsive programs. If the goal was to provide a publicly supplied addictive drug to separate people from a toxic drug supply, and it is the blame of toxic drugs, and no other reason, that people are dying in British Columbia — this is what we hear time and again from the government, that it is as a result of a toxic drug supply that people are losing their lives — why wouldn’t we be collecting data?
Does the minister believe that this aspect should be measured? Should we not be collecting information on whether or not people continue to access toxic drugs while receiving publicly supplied addictive drugs?
Hon. J. Whiteside: It is the coroner who says that the cause of mortality related to the toxic drug supply is toxic drugs, in fact. That is what the coroner says. That is what public health says. That is the evidence that informs and leads the programs that government implements and stands up in order to try to protect British Columbians and to try to move the dial on what is an unrelenting crisis of toxic drugs, as we’re advised by the coroner.
I would note, as well, that the coroner has identified that there is no evidence that safer supply is contributing to toxic drug deaths. And as I’ve said, the evaluation of prescribed safer supply programs is underway.
E. Sturko: I thank the minister for that answer. Yes, the coroner does say that it’s toxic drugs. Just wanting to make sure that the government is doing its due diligence to make sure we’re actually separating people from toxic drugs through this program.
I’d like to talk now a little bit about the expansion of Red Fish. On page 9 of the fiscal plan, it states: “The province will also expand on the Red Fish Healing Centre model of care to other regions of the province so that more people can receive care for complex mental health and substance use closer to home.”
Can the minister clarify, with regards to the expansion of the Red Fish Healing Centre model of care: is it government’s intent to expand the model to existing beds or facilities? Or is it the government’s intent to expand it with other net new facilities based on the model?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Net new.
E. Sturko: If it’s net new spaces, where, in the capital funding for this, is this in the budget?
Hon. J. Whiteside: With respect to Red Fish, I’m pleased about the member’s interest in this model of care, which we know filled a gap in our system with respect to those individuals who suffer from concurrent disorders — so a substance use disorder and a mental health disorder.
It’s a purpose-built facility. I can only imagine that the member was very impressed, having had an opportunity, I know, to view it recently. I was pleased at the outreach from the Third Party around wanting to tour the facility and was pleased that members of the opposition were able to join in that tour, as well, and meet with the staff and just hear directly about the really extraordinary work that is done.
That Red Fish site, the 105 beds — those beds, as I think folks will remember, were transferred from the Burnaby Mental Health site when Burnaby Mental Health was closed down. Unfortunately, only 15 net new additional beds were added to the Red Fish facility, which has left a further gap that we are working to fill.
We have a project board struck with the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, Ministry of Health, PHSA. PHSA is doing the preliminary work. They’ve been engaged for some months now, doing the preliminary work to work with regional health authorities to assess what the need is and what potential locations would be. The planning dollars for what is a complex, purpose-built facility are in the budget. The work is underway. We look forward to receiving the business case when the business case is ready.
I would just note that I think it took about eight years to build the current Red Fish facility. I don’t anticipate it will take quite that long this time, but for any kind of purpose-built, specialized health care facility, we need to really invest in the planning up front so that we’re making sure that we are avoiding any potential issues around the building of that facility down the road.
E. Sturko: Thanks to the minister for that. Well, it didn’t really answer my question. But I was impressed with going to Red Fish Healing Centre. I did note that it’s got 300 beds that are divided up amongst every health authority in the entire province that can deliver those services — 300 beds in a population of over five million British Columbians.
But the question I asked is: where is the capital funding for this expansion in the budget?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I just want to clarify that the number of beds at the Red Fish Healing Centre is 105, and when the previous government moved that facility from Burnaby to its current location on the former Riverview lands — the current lands are called səmiq̓ʷəʔelə — they only increased the number of beds in that facility by 15. That was a decision taken by the former government.
It left us with a gap which we are working to fill, and when a business plan has been developed and presented, then we will be in a position to look at what the capital needs are. We have the planning structure in place, the governance in place, the planning dollars in place. That work is underway, and the capital dollars will follow when we have the business case.
Interjections.
E. Sturko: I do note some other commentary. Is there another member who wanted to stand up and add their commentary? Okay. Thanks.
What I heard is that there was no capital funding in this budget, so we’ll move on.
On page 61 of the 2023 fiscal plan, it mentions the “expansion of recovery community centres throughout the province and more beds that provide treatment for people with severe mental illness and chronic or severe substance use.” Can the minister point to where in the fiscal plan the capital funding for the centres is?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, with respect to the recovery communities, those community hubs, they’re not bed-based. They’re not purpose-built. They aren’t in the same sort of category of complexity when it comes to building that a facility like Red Fish would be.
The kinds of models that we’re looking at, such as the Junction in Vancouver, definitely have more of a community centre feel to them.
The health authorities are engaged in planning work right now to identify what space might be appropriate. It might be possible to lease space. There might be space within the health authority. We don’t know that capital dollars are necessary to actually stand these services up yet. If a health authority identifies that a capital investment is required, then that would come forward through a business plan.
E. Sturko: How many centres are there intended to be, and in what regions, please?
Hon. J. Whiteside: There’s currently one centre open in Vancouver, the Junction. There is another underway in Vancouver Coastal, on the North Shore. The budget provides funding for an additional four, and each of the remaining four regional health authorities would be allocated one of those centres.
E. Sturko: Regarding the 100 new adult substance use beds, over three years, that’s less than three beds a month. How can we expect to have fully implemented and operational beds for each fiscal year, and where will these beds be located?
Hon. J. Whiteside: The 100 beds that the member is referring to are beds that build on a relationship that we have already with the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division. They provide 105 treatment beds across the province.
These 100 beds will add to that relationship. There will be a granting process open for all of the beds this year. We’ll be working with the CMHA and regional health authorities on determining where the allocation of those beds needs to be, based on, of course, where there is a need, providers who submit proposals for those beds, the quality of the proposals, etc., all of those sorts of metrics.
E. Sturko: Can the minister please provide a definition of what is meant by “seamless care”?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I don’t particularly have a clinical definition of seamless care. What I can say is what we’ve been advised, what we’ve seen, and what I know people who have been in the mental health and addictions system have identified, is that there can be gaps along the way. There can be risks of losing people in those gaps. Whether it’s moving from withdrawal management to treatment, you can lose people there. From treatment to after-care, we can lose people there.
Folks, particularly at Providence Health Care — given their experience, in particular, with the Downtown Eastside, given that St. Paul’s emergency really provides care to many people living in the Downtown Eastside — have turned their minds to what kind of model would really work towards eliminating those gaps. It is about really trying to address the cracks in those transition points. That led to Providence Health Care’s proposal, called Road to Recovery, which seeks to eliminate those gaps.
So “seamless care” really is about eliminating gaps.
E. Sturko: I thank the minister for the answer, but it is concerning not to have an actual definition of seamless care. While the minister may say “clinical definition,” I think when we’re setting up something like a framework and touting that someone is seeking to create seamless care, a framework of seamless care, that that would be clearly defined and what the objectives of that would be.
The government announced on March 2 that under a new model for seamless care, there’ll be 95 beds. Are these net new beds?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Yes, those are all net new beds.
E. Sturko: Can the minister explain the tendering process for the 95 beds?
Hon. J. Whiteside: The Road to Recovery model is what Providence Health Care and front-line clinicians are seeking to develop, which is what they mean by a seamless model of care — which is, in the transition of an individual from one level of care to another level of care — to eliminate the risk of losing people in that transition.
What they’ve identified as being particularly important is that those services are very connected, particularly the early services, to the health authority and to the hospital. So St. Paul’s will be directly operating 45 withdrawal management, acute stabilization and short stay beds. Those beds are due to open certainly within this fiscal year. The work to stand up those beds is underway right now.
The next phase of care is the treatment beds. It is quite possible that St. Paul’s will operate those beds themselves. If they don’t operate them themselves, then St. Paul’s will engage in a tendering process, like health authorities always routinely do with respect to beds.
Because of the unique nature of this particular program, the idea is that there’s no gap between moving from detox withdrawal management stabilization into the treatment process.
E. Sturko: I would like to ask a couple questions about the Prince George sobering centre. The sobering centre in Prince George that was announced last June and was to open this past fall has been reported to be behind schedule. Can the minister confirm the current status of the project and how far behind schedule it is? Has the operator been selected? And if so, what is the centre’s new opening date?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I understand the Northern Health Authority has completed the RFP process, that an operator has been selected and that the health authority is in discussions with the operator around standing up those services and that we should have a revised opening date for those beds shortly.
E. Sturko: I’d like to ask some questions now about decriminalization. How many substance use navigators are to be hired in each health authority? How many have been hired to date? And if that recruitment is not yet complete, what is the target for those positions to be filled?
Hon. J. Whiteside: There are two substance use navigators for each regional health authority as well as two for the First Nations Health Authority. So that’s 12 in total.
Ten of those positions are filled. There is a vacancy in the Northern Health Authority that is being recruited for as well as in the First Nations Health Authority. The majority of those positions were in place prior to January 31.
E. Sturko: Prior to January 31, 2023, what specific actions has the province taken to “ensure that individuals who desire treatment or other supports can access them when needed,” as set out in the letter of requirements for the move to decriminalization?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I would say…. I mean, it’s leading up to decriminalization. It has also been work that the ministry has been engaged in, really, since 2017, since the ministry was created.
If I just go to 2021, the budget investment we made in 2021…. That budget added $132 million to enhance treatment and recovery services. It included 65 new initiatives, 195 new substance use beds, $55 million to expand substance use services for youth, an additional $15 million to support the youth beds, which we’ve been discussing. There’s the work, of course, done upstream on Foundry and the integrated care teams. We’ve added 360 treatment beds.
We have, as part of our primary care strategy, added, through standing up, 63 primary care networks. Fifty-nine of those have been implemented, and 94 percent have successfully recruited mental health and substance use–specific classifications to ensure, again, the integration of mental health and substance use care with our primary care system. There have been FTEs added specifically for mental health and substance use care across those primary care networks as well as in urgent and primary care centres, community health centres, through the First Nations primary care network.
We have expanded aggressive care teams. We now have 32 ACT teams across the province.
We have, also, rapid access clinics in hospitals in many health authorities. We’ve expanded access to medication-assisted treatment.
All of the work that we are doing with Budget 2023, and the investment, is building on that foundation.
The Chair: We’re at the end of our time, but I’m going to recognize the member to read her questions into the record.
E. Sturko: Yes. Thank you, hon. Chair. I’ll read these questions into the record with regards to monitoring, applied research and evaluation.
The question is: what are the intended objectives and outcomes the ministry is monitoring progress towards? The minister stated in January: “We are in the process of working out the details of evaluation, the criteria, the metrics for the Health Canada study.”
One of the questions is: is the process complete? Does the ministry have the baseline data complete, and if so, will the minister make that available publicly? Who is to conduct the “robust, arm’s-length and transparent evaluation,” as required by the letter of requirements? Is the monthly dashboard now available, and if not, when is it scheduled to come online?
I just have two more subsections. Would that be okay, hon. Chair? Okay. Thank you.
Minister Bennett said it would be a quarterly dashboard, but the letter required a monthly one. Either way, months have passed, and the dashboard is unknown.
An additional quote from Minister Bennett: “I would say that we also need at least three months to be able to get this sorted out. Also, I think, as we let people know the indicators that we have chosen…. If people have ideas, other indicators that they would like, whether that’s a small business or other people saying what the other things that would be good to measure are, that would help us determine the efficacy.”
Who is a member of the decriminalization research and evaluation committee?
That’s the end of the questions, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Member.
Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.
Hon. J. Whiteside: Are we done?
E. Sturko: Yes, ma’am.
Hon. J. Whiteside: Can I just take a moment to read an answer to the question? I was hoping to catch the member before he left.
Just quickly, with respect to the Cranbrook Foundry and the budget allocations, $200,000 in 2020-21, $500,000 in 2021-22, $500,000 in 2022-23. Their operating will be $800,000 when they open. If there’s anything further to that, we can provide that information.
Not a lot of time for closing comments. I don’t like to be between folks and their lunch.
I do want to express my gratitude to the member for Surrey South for the questions and to colleagues from the official opposition and from the Third Party who brought forward very important comments and questions on an issue that is terrifically important to everyone in our communities.
There are very few people I encounter who have not had some experience, either personally in their family, in their circle or in their community, that has touched on the mental health and addictions crisis we’re facing in this province. It is truly a crisis that is going to require all of us to work together in our communities, in this place, with providers, who are doing such extraordinary work to try to keep people safe out there, as we build out an integrated system of mental health and substance use care for British Columbians.
I am very grateful to everyone who is in our canoe paddling with us, as a former and beloved colleague of ours would say.
Vote 39: ministry operations, $26,715,000 — approved.
Hon. J. Whiteside: I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.