Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, April 27, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 315
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Missing: Why are
Children Disappearing | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2023
The House met at 10:01 a.m.
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Hon. Members, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12, I’m advising you of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
Consequently, the Deputy Speaker will take the chair.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: K. Greene.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: I wish to introduce some guests joining us in the gallery today: my chief of staff, Krystal Smith, and her family. Her sister and brother-in-law Karla and Jim Leask own GeoTility, a geothermal company based in Kelowna. It does business across North America, including some B.C. schools and, most recently, the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in California.
Their children are here as well: Jimmy Leask, who works in sales at GeoTility, and Meagan Leask, who works at Allnorth Consultants as a project manager and has worked on projects at Highland Valley Copper and New Afton. They all live in Kelowna.
Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.
T. Halford: Today in the gallery is somebody very familiar to us, Dr Julian Somers, a world-renowned clinical psychologist and professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University. His work, of course, addresses social policies, clinical practices to aim to reduce homelessness and crime involving people who are struggling with addiction. He’s also here to participate in the Enough Is Enough rally with his son Nicholas.
Now, Nicholas, a young man who is here to support his dad, wants to demonstrate that young voters want to see more action. He is a UBC urban forestry student and will be documenting the rally in order to spread the Enough Is Enough message far and wide across this province.
I ask the House to please make them both welcome.
Hon. S. Robinson: Joining us in the House today are three guests from UBC’s Political Science Student Association. James LaRose is the outgoing president, while Anouska Gautam and Nicole Mendoza are the incoming co-presidents. It’s always a pleasure to see students take on leadership roles to serve their community, and I thank them for their hard work.
Would the House please join me in welcoming them here.
E. Ross: Last year I was leaving my apartment here in Victoria and somebody was yelling my name, which is not unusual. In this case, it was friends from Kitimat, who actually moved to Victoria. They were both born and raised in Kitimat, B.C. They spent their working careers with Rio Tinto Alcan, which is an aluminum smelter, both in Kitimat and Kemano. Kemano is the power source for the smelter in Kitimat. They chose to retire to Victoria, B.C.
Susan and Perry Minaker live just up the street from us with their dog, who I’ve met as well. They also have a son, who is a retinal surgeon currently working at Chicago Rush Hospital in the U.S.A., and a daughter, who is a pharmacist and currently working for Shoppers Drug Mart and lives also in Victoria, B.C.
Would the House please make them feel welcome.
Hon. G. Heyman: Take Our Kids to Work Day is a great opportunity for students to get some experience seeing what a work environment is like, and it’s also a great chance for parents and intergenerational connections. Joining us in the House today are several grade 9 students and their parents and caregivers who happen to work for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. They’re here for Take Our Kids to Work Day.
Joining us are Caleb Jonker, Jennifer Jonker, Erin McIntosh, Meara McIntosh, Eloise Burns, Sharilynn Wardrop, Faye Quin, Melissa Quin, Jillian Burton, Robert Tones, Islay Mei Gordon and Alicen Chow.
I hope members here will join me in making them all feel very welcome today.
I. Paton: Today I’d like to welcome my dear wife, Pam. Some call her the de facto MLA for Delta South, but she does a great job backing me up and looking after our livestock on our farm when I’m not there.
She’s here today with our good friends Scott and Michele Harris from Tsawwassen. Scott has recently retired as a famous nursery owner in Ladner called Harris Nurseryland.
Would everybody please welcome my wife, Pam, and my guests, Scott and Michele.
Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have two special guests. Colin Plant is the chair of the capital regional district, and Ted Robbins is the chief administrative officer. The CRD is a regional local government on southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, and it encompasses 13 municipalities of Greater Victoria and three electoral areas: Saltspring Island electoral area, south Gulf Islands electoral area and Juan de Fuca electoral area. We’re going to have our first meeting today, and I really look forward to having a great discussion with them.
M. Lee: I would like to, on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself, welcome two guests that we have in the gallery here today behind me, I understand. That is Chris Chan and Stella Chan. Chris and Stella recently participated in the 50th anniversary gala, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself were at, for SUCCESS. They’re celebrating 50 years, as both the members for Richmond-Queensborough and Richmond North Centre have commemorated in this place, in terms of the importance of SUCCESS as an organization.
Stella is someone who has been the honorary chair of the SHINE Mother’s Day Tea gala, as well as the founding chair. She has also been the co-chair of the Chinese-Canadian Miracle Weekend committee of the B.C. Children’s Hospital Foundation. She serves on the board of directors for Women in Primerica, an organization.
Chris Chan is the managing broker of Regent Park Realty. He served on the board of directors for St. Mark’s College at the University of British Columbia’s Corpus Christi College. Members that participated yesterday in the Parliamentary Reform Committee were addressing some potential changes to their governing legislation. He’s also a past vice-chair of the SUCCESS foundation.
One other note that I wanted to make here is that Chris and Stella clearly are just other good examples of individuals that have strong professional careers but also do a lot to give back to community. That’s been a fine example to their son, Arthur, who, as some of you may know, was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 3½ years old. He spent the next 3½ years in chemo and made a full recovery. He is a healthy and strong Sauder grad at UBC. He is also the president and co-founder of another organization called Dare to Dream Destiny Foundation, which was founded in 2015 and strives for progressive change in society.
I would just ask all members of this House to join me and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to welcome Chris and Stella Chan to our House.
M. Elmore: We have a number of representatives today from the Filipino community across British Columbia. They are here to mark April 27, which will be proclaimed as Lapu-Lapu Day. I’m not going to introduce everybody individually, but I would like to give a very warm welcome to the Philippine consul general, Arlene Magno; the Philippine Consulate General cultural officer, Maria Lyra Ocampo; and Philippine consulate staff, Arnel Anacion.
I invite all members of the House to join at 11:30 at the Rattenbury Room for the proclamation.
I ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.
D. Davies: I’d like to welcome to the House today Tamara Kronis. She’s a practising human rights lawyer who was formerly with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. She now lives in Nanaimo with her family and rescue dog, Austin.
She is joined here by a number of other folks to participate in the Enough Is Enough.
Would the House please make Tamara feel welcome.
S. Furstenau: I have two guests in the gallery today, UVic students who took up my invitation, when I was in Dr. Andrew Wender’s class, to come and shadow me for the day.
Eakam Dhillon is currently completing a degree in history, which made me very excited, and minoring in political science. Her interest includes soccer and volunteering at Punjabi school to help younger generations read, write and speak their mother tongue.
Jaxson Halychuk grew up in Port Alberni and moved to Victoria in 2021 to go to UVic, where he is currently pursuing a bachelor of commerce. He did take a history course as well. His interests include running, hiking, playing rugby and computer software and technology. He’s looking to pursue a career in government.
Would the House please make Eakam and Jaxson most welcome.
G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a good friend of mine, Jon Coleman, from the Cowichan Valley. Now, Jon is a highly regarded Indigenous business and community leader. Sadly Jon continues to be sidelined from working in his own traditional territory on the Cowichan hospital.
Jon is here today to participate in the Enough Is Enough rally. John is a father. He’s a grandfather. He has significant concerns about the increasing housing affordability and opioid crisis that is disproportionately negatively impacting Indigenous peoples.
Would the House please make my friend Jon Coleman very welcome today.
M. Bernier: I hope nobody else is getting up, because I think it’s always important to save the best for last.
Deputy Speaker: We’ll see.
M. Bernier: As most people know, every time I have an opportunity to stand up in this House and brag about the amazing district of Tumbler Ridge, I think it’s a great opportunity to do so again.
Today the district of Tumbler Ridge has won the Canadian rights to be known now as SledTown ShowDown winners, as the best place to be in Canada to go snowmobiling. So people like myself and others…. I invite you up to that region to come and enjoy the most beautiful part of the province, I would say, up in the Tumbler Ridge area.
With that, it’s my pleasure to welcome to the House today…. We have Darryl Krakowka, the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, who is with us today; his executive assistant, Karen Curry; and the executive director for the Tumbler Ridge Museum, who is also here today, Zena Conlin.
I want the House to welcome them and thank the ministers who have agreed to meet with them today. Please welcome them to the House.
E. Ross: In the House today we have Collen Middleton. Collen Middleton is an environmental scientist with over 18 years in the professional consulting services industry. He got involved in public safety advocacy after moving to south Nanaimo two years ago with his wife and two young boys. Upon discovering how unsafe the streets in his neighbourhood had become in the years prior to moving to the city, he felt unable to sit idly by and watch it continued to deteriorate.
Collen Middleton is also here to participate in the Enough Is Enough rally that’s going to happen on the Legislature lawn today. Collen is the founder and president of the Nanaimo Area Public Safety Association and is determined to see crime and street disorder improve in his city through advocacy and activism. He and his association will rattle whatever cages they need to, to improve the situation on the streets for the sake of his family, neighbours, fellow citizens of Nanaimo and British Columbians broadly.
Would the House please welcome Collen Middleton.
F. Donnelly: Today we have Andrea Barnett, the national policy analyst for Ducks Unlimited Canada and a member of the Minister’s Wildlife Advisory Council, in the House, along with Matt.
Would the House please welcome these two from Ducks Unlimited.
Personal Statements
RETIREMENT AS MLA AT NEXT ELECTION
N. Letnick: I don’t expect to be best for last. Just to inform the House that I have announced today that I will not be seeking re-election in the next provincial election.
Deputy Speaker: Well, thank you for your service, Member. [Applause.]
He says: “Cut it out.” Always humble to the end.
Thank you, Member.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS
G. Kyllo: On April 28, we recognize the National Day of Mourning, a solemn day to honour and remember those who have lost their lives or been injured in the workplace. On behalf of the official opposition, I stand before you to express my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those workers who have lost their lives while trying to earn a living for their loved ones.
The tragic crane collapse in downtown Kelowna less than two years ago claimed the lives of five workers. This heartbreaking incident is not an isolated case, as 181 people in British Columbia lost their lives due to work-related injuries and illnesses last year.
On this day of mourning, reflection and remembrance, we renew our commitment to creating safer and healthier workplaces for everyone. As we remember those we have lost, we must recognize the importance of providing workers with adequate protection and access to necessary resources when they are hurt or become ill.
Government must take a proactive approach to ensure employers provide workers with a safe and supportive workplace. This includes providing the necessary resources and tools to promote the well-being of all employees, employers and stakeholders.
Since 1991, British Columbia has joined the rest of Canada in recognizing the National Day of Mourning by observing moments of silence, wearing ribbons, lighting candles and finding other ways to remember those that we have lost. Today I encourage all of us to find our own way of remembering those we’ve lost and standing with the loved ones and survivors.
Tomorrow let us take a moment to reflect on those we have lost and let us honour their memory by recommitting ourselves to building a safer and more supportive workplace for all British Columbians.
Every worker in B.C. deserves to return home safely at the end of each and every workday.
CANADIAN FIREFIGHTERS
CURLING
CHAMPIONSHIP
M. Babchuk: We’ve had members stand up in this chamber and talk about hockey, football and other sports, but it’s my privilege to stand up today and recognize four B.C. men that have taken top honours at the national Canadian Firefighters Curling Championship.
The B.C. rink, skipped by Dean Thulin and backed up by third Ken Dawson, both of whom are from Campbell River, were teamed with Summerland’s Rob Robinson and Kevin Maxwell from Victoria. This foursome, after winning the provincial championship, headed to Prince Edward Island’s capital of Charlottetown to compete from March 24 to April 1.
The rink went through the round robin with a 7-2 record, losing only to both northern Ontario and southern Ontario. They beat Alberta in the semifinal and then ended up facing northern Ontario again in the final game, where they prevailed, with a score of 8-6, to bring the gold medal to British Columbia.
Next year’s Canadian Firefighting Curling Hydrant Championship will be in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, where I’m looking forward to watching team B.C. defend their title.
Would this House please join me in congratulating Dean Thulin, who is an auxiliary firefighter from Fire Hall No. 2 in Campbell River; Ken Dawson, retired firefighter from Campbell River Hall No. 1; Rob Robinson, who is currently the chief of the Summerland Fire Department; and Kevin Maxwell, who is a firefighter with the department of defence at CFB Esquimalt, for the winning of their gold medal championship and thank them for representing British Columbia so well.
CLEARCUT IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
M. Morris: What happens to wildlife that inhabited a forested area that’s about to be clearcut logged? Well, here’s my observations, after more than 50 years as an outdoorsman. For any of the 81 species that den or nest in tree cavities, they are often killed in the process as they take shelter in those cavities, an environment that they deem safe. Many species reside in ground cavities and are crushed.
For birds and fur-bearers that flee the area into adjacent forest cover, they are faced with new challenges. Most species are territorial, protecting their food source and their habitat with their life. A fight to the death is not uncommon.
For species that flee into adjacent areas previously clearcut, they become susceptible to starvation and exposure due to lack of habitat. Suitable habitat can take more than a century of growth before it once again supports these species.
The Migratory Birds Convention Act, a 100-year-old treaty between Canada, the United States and Mexico, prohibits disturbing any bird nests from May until August inclusive in British Columbia. Yet according to a study published in 2014, an estimated 400,000 bird nests are destroyed during this period each year from clearcutting. Millions of hectares of forest have been clearcut in British Columbia in the past 50 years.
Raptors such as owls, goshawks and eagles use stick nests, located near the tops of mature trees. It’s an offence under B.C.’s Wildlife Act to destroy stick nests at any time, yet thousands of these nests have disappeared.
To add insult to injury, once an area is clearcut, glyphosate is often used to kill the deciduous and broadleaf growth, a critical food source for most insects and wildlife.
Wildlife displaced from clearcut logging stands little to no chance of survival. No wonder B.C.’s wildlife populations have plummeted.
ASIAN IMPACT SOCIETY
ANTI-RACISM
PROJECTS
R. Glumac: Last month I attended a book launch for a book called Mina’s Lunch. It’s a story about a little girl from a different culture who brings an unfamiliar food to lunch at school.
This book came to fruition with the help of a multiculturalism grant from the province of British Columbia, and it supported the great work of the Asian Impact Society, a group of volunteers that formed during COVID to work to eliminate Asian discrimination and to create a space for healing and building inclusive communities through stories and art.
This book was one of their first projects. They wanted to help school children learn about embracing diversity and encouraging acceptance and respect of all cultures. They hope to get copies of the book to all elementary schools in B.C. and are working towards another book next year. In the meantime, they’re taking on other projects.
They’re seeking artist submissions for an art exhibition called Your Art Your Reflections: Multiculturalism, Diversity and Anti-Racism. The goal of the exhibition is to educate the public on why multiculturalism and diversity are important and why there’s no place in our community for racism.
You can submit your art. It’s open to three age categories: 12 and under, 13 to 18 and 19-plus. The submission deadline is June 1, and the exhibition will take place in Place des Arts in Coquitlam. There are many more great projects on the way.
If you’d like to submit your artwork, you can go to asianimpactsociety.com, read more about the great work they’re doing and also follow them on Facebook.
RESOURCES FOR
FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITIES IN
GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION PROCESSES
A. Olsen: This statement is dedicated to my sisters, Joni and Heather, my nieces, nephews, cousins, and our relatives in W̱SÁNEĆ and all of our relatives working in bands and administrative offices in First Nations communities across the province and country.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
Personal Statements
APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS
MADE IN THE
HOUSE
A. Olsen: First, Mr. Speaker, a bit of business.
This week I became agitated in a committee for pay-transparency legislation. For that, I apologize to the Chair from Richmond-Steveston; I apologize to my colleague in the official opposition, in Kelowna-Mission; and I also apologize to the Minister of Finance, her staff, Hansard staff, anyone watching and to my colleagues attending to their House duty.
I try to raise my points without raising my voice, and this week, I failed.
Debate Continued
A. Olsen: I’ve noted several times the administration and financial burden this government puts on Indigenous communities through our consultation policies. The steady flow of referrals comes with meagre financial resources, time constrained to 30 days to respond and a policy of silence being compliance.
My heart here is for my relatives, who work so hard on behalf of our communities — one or two often showing up to meetings with government officials, sitting across the table from a half dozen technical staff from the ministry. Then, after only a short break, they find themselves at yet another table, on a different topic and with a new group of government workers — always outnumbered, always out-resourced.
They inspire me to stand in here and demand government recognize the crushing workload that we are creating and the psychological trauma that is sustained from it. We love our communities, and we want to flourish. We are proud and passionate, and as the government referrals clog our in-boxes, it’s overwhelming.
When legislation is introduced, it creates another stream of consultation referrals. The minister introducing that legislation should be required to have the resources that can be provided to First Nations to do their technical and their legal work, because it makes for better work.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
LAPU-LAPU DAY
M. Elmore: Today, April 27, will be proclaimed as Lapu-Lapu Day in B.C.
The history of the Philippines is a saga of unrelenting resistance against foreign colonization and domination. It is an unbroken epic of struggle for freedom, self-determination, independence and national sovereignty.
The Philippines was a colony of Spain for more than 300 years. Based on historical accounts, at least 200 revolts broke out during this time. Filipinos took up arms to rebel against the imposition of levies, forced labour, land grabbing, commercial monopolies and other unjust practices. These uprisings culminated in a nationalist revolution, which succeeded in 1898, with the declaration of national independence by the Philippines.
I recall all of these, because the struggle against foreign subjugation began on the shores of Mactan-Cebu in central Philippines, my mom’s home province, where an Indigenous leader named Lapu-Lapu refused to bow down to Spanish rule. On April 27, 1521, Lapu-Lapu and his warriors repulsed a Spanish expeditionary force, commanded by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan, in an assertion of liberty against foreign rule, and 502 years ago this day, Lapu-Lapu stood unbowed before invaders, so that he and his people could remain free.
Lapu-Lapu is thus recognized as the first national and Indigenous hero, with April 27 designated as a special holiday in the Philippines.
The legacy of Lapu-Lapu runs deep in the psyche of Filipinos. It lives in their deep-seated value of bayanihan, which is made up of two words: bayan, which means community, and bayani, which means hero. Bayanihan is the communal desire and act of helping one another, of being connected with others.
I’d like to extend an invitation for everyone here to join the proclamation at 11:30 in the Rattenbury Room and 2 p.m. on Saturday at the Bayanihan Centre in Victoria. There’s a production by the very talented Francis Matheu.
Mabuhay. [Filipino was spoken.] Thank you, everybody. Let’s hear it for Lapu-Lapu Day. Mabuhay.
Oral Questions
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND COMMUNITY
SAFETY
K. Falcon: Today in British Columbia, the public is forced to confront daily incidents of shootings, vandalism, brutal random assaults and rampant lawlessness. The responsibility for this explosion of violence and social disorder falls squarely on the shoulders of this soft-on-crime Premier.
This crisis began during his five years as Attorney General, marked by his catch-and-release program that allows violent prolific offenders to act with total impunity, knowing they’ll be released right back into the community.
His decisions as Housing Minister to warehouse those with severe mental health and addiction issues, without any proper supports, into communities over local community opposition and his utter failure to address encampments and violence in tent cities have only made the crisis worse. Now he’s adding more fuel to the crisis with his reckless decriminalization and disregard for police chiefs’ concerns with the open, public use of crystal meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl.
Andrea Miller, a young mother whose five-year-old daughter, Everleigh, found a bag of fentanyl on her elementary school playground and unwittingly brought it home and thousands of other parents in communities right across this province are saying enough is enough.
My question to the Premier: when will he realize that it’s his record, his policy choices, that are causing the crime, chaos and open drug use that have parents like Andrea and those outside this Legislature fearing for the lives of their children?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. This government, as every government across this country, takes the issue of public safety and the challenges that we have seen of some of the increase in crime rates very seriously.
That’s why it was this government that led the charge at the federal level to get changes to the Criminal Code when it comes to bail, to expand the terms of reverse onus, so that it’s not just for firearms but is in fact a much broader definition of a weapon used in violent crime and also taking into account previous violence by the offender.
We worked with other Premiers of political stripes right across this country. The federal government, the Justice Minister made a commitment to us that those changes would be put in place in this legislative session in Ottawa.
At the same time, this government, as the member well knows, has done what we can do in the province, investing the largest amount of money into new police officers for small rural communities across the province, the specialized investigation teams that are crucial, the largest investment in RCMP funding. There’s over $1 billion in the budget for mental health supports right across the full spectrum, and housing initiatives.
We take this issue very seriously. People in this province deserve to feel safe, and we will continue to make sure that they are.
K. Falcon: With all due respect to the Solicitor General, you know, we hear these words. Oh, they take this so seriously.
You’ve been in power for six years. I just want to remind the opposition: this is your second term in government.
Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.
K. Falcon: You’ve been there for six years. It sure would be nice to see some actual results instead of rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that our streets, our cafés, buses and even schools have become as unsafe as they have ever been.
Little Everleigh, from Nanaimo, innocently believing that the bag of fentanyl, which she’d found in her elementary school playground, looked cute, carried it home in her backpack to show her younger brother Remington.
Under the family’s kitchen table, her mother, Andrea, discovered her two young children attempting to open this deadly bag of fentanyl. Andrea says: “My child and her two-year-old brother she was playing with would have died had they ingested the substance. A few days later, a significant amount of drug-related items — pipes, uncapped syringes, drug bags, used tinfoil, tie-offs, etc. — were found in the hedges where our children line up for class and play during recess.”
Something is terribly wrong when our children can’t go out to play at recess without putting their lives at risk. The public is saying enough is enough.
My question is this. When are Andrea and the folks in this gallery who are demanding to know, from this Premier…? How many lives must be put at risk before this Premier stands up, does his job and puts the safety of the community before his own radical agenda?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for the question. The actions that he described are illegal. They were illegal seven years ago. They are illegal today, and the police do their job every day to ensure that those individuals are arrested.
What I also want to make clear is that this government has been taking action since day one. The largest investments in policing in the history of this province…
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …to put police in communities is not a radical agenda. Putting in place a witness protection program that has resulted in prosecution after prosecution and the solving of cold cases is not a radical agenda.
Putting in place a forensic firearms lab so that police are able to build a stronger case is not a radical agenda. Putting in place more than $1 billion for mental health supports is not a radical agenda. Putting in place housing initiatives, which did not take place when that side sat on this side, is not a radical agenda.
It is a public safety agenda, designed to put in place the tools police have asked for, working with local communities to put in place the resources that they have been needing, and at the same time going to Ottawa.
This province is taking the leadership role to get the Criminal Code changed, so that those who are violent offenders are not given bail. That is not a radical agenda. That is a public safety agenda that we will continue.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, we will have order in this chamber. Thank you.
M. de Jong: Has it occurred to the Premier, has it occurred to the government, why these rallies are taking place? Do they care? The rallies are taking place because for six years, as Attorney General, as Housing Minister and now as Premier, this Premier has embarked upon a failed ideological social experiment that has compromised the safety of British Columbians. People are saying that enough is enough. They don’t want to be the Premier’s social experiment guinea pigs any longer. They want to feel safe in their communities.
This is Andrea’s reality. Listen to what she says. “I’m now terrified that I may send my children to school and never see them again because of something an addict has left behind. I now have naloxone in my home because the drug epidemic is invading the homes and lives of people with no connection to it.” The Premier’s policies for six years on prolific offenders, on encampments and on drugs have created that reality.
Will the Premier and the government finally acknowledge the disastrous effect of his policies, his failed social experiment, the failed social experiment that has compromised the safety of families across this province, and will he finally take some concrete steps to restore the safety that British Columbia families deserve right across this province?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, who also sat on this side of the House and who, as Attorney General, when he was Attorney General, knows that the Criminal Code is a federal responsibility.
He also knows, as does the opposition, the challenges that we face in this province and that every other province is facing when it comes to the issues of violence and public safety. We have seen it on our transit system here and in Edmonton and Calgary and Toronto, right across this country. It’s why this government has worked with other provinces to get the federal government to change the Criminal Code. That is taking place.
At the same time, we also know, on the social side in terms of the opioid epidemic, which was taking place when they sat on this side of the House, that it’s taking place again right across this country.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is. It is.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, this is not shouting-at-each-other time.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member will know that this side of the House worked on the all-party committee to come up with solutions, initiatives and approaches, which all of us in this chamber agreed upon. Many of those things have been implemented. Decriminalization was part of that.
At the same time, we also know that there needed to be significant increase in mental health services and supports — $1 billion in this budget to do just that. Whether it is the social side or the enforcement side, all four pillars are required to deal with this challenge that we face in this province. This government is putting the tools in place that police need and that health authorities need. We are doing everything we can to ensure that our communities are safe.
M. de Jong: What the Premier and, sadly, the government don’t want to seem to acknowledge is that there is a made-in-B.C. dimension to this public safety crisis for which the Premier himself is responsible.
I sometimes wonder what world some of these folks are living in. Most people don’t have a police escort that takes them to and from work. The sad reality is that more and more people require one, and it’s because of the policies of this Premier. People are paying the price for purposeful policies advanced by this Premier expanding drug availability instead of focusing on treatment and recovery.
It’s not just failing the addicts, of course; it is failing children like Everleigh and Remington. Again, this is what their mother says. Andrea says: “It’s no longer a matter of if something happens to our children but a matter of when something happens to them.” That is the sad reality.
Enough is enough. Will the Premier speak to Andrea and the frightened, angry British Columbians living across the province and explain why he has allowed his choices, his policies, his social experiment to put their public safety in jeopardy?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I have pointed out to this House the initiatives undertaken by our government, that our Premier has led, in terms of ensuring that we are doing everything we can in terms of public safety by working with the police, the men and women on the ground who deal with these situations every day, and giving them the tools that they, the experts on the street, ask for.
We have worked with local governments to deal with the specific challenges that they face in their individual communities. That’s why we put in place the hubs across the province, the 12 hubs. It’s why we’ve expanded the car program, the mental health supports, the peer-assisted care teams, and we will continue to do that. It’s also why, as I’ve said, we went to Ottawa to get changes to the Criminal Code.
But it is much more than that that’s required. It’s also dealing with the mental health side of things. Since this government took office, in 2017, not only have we been investing in mental health supports, but we have also been undoing the damage, the very damage that….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, I hear the member of the opposition.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. One member has the floor.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Let me put it this way. We invested in mental health facilities.
We didn’t close the adolescent psychiatric unit in Abbotsford. We didn’t eliminate psychology services for adult rehabilitation at the Royal Inland Hospital. We didn’t close the only withdrawal management program in the Fraser Valley. We didn’t cut the social work budget in the Fraser health region. We didn’t close the Waddell’s Haven Guest Home in Mission, a residential mental health facility that provides addiction services. We didn’t close the 11 residential care beds at Bear Creek Lodge, at Newton Regency in Surrey.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ve invested in mental health services, and we will continue. I’m sorry that they don’t like their record, but that’s a fact.
REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT
A. Olsen: My question is to the Premier. Will he commit to a full, comprehensive review of the Mental Health Act?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. When it comes to the role of the Mental Health Act in our province, we know there have been a number of recommendations that have come forward to ensure that the operation of the Mental Health Act works in a better way for people who are involuntarily committed under the act as well as those clinicians who are also working under the Mental Health Act.
We have brought in a rights advice process, as was recommended, in order to ensure that individuals who are receiving that care have appropriate rights advice.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Whiteside: We are working, following the recommendations of the Ombudsperson’s report in 2019, to develop, in collaboration with Health Justice, education and curriculum for clinicians working on the front lines to better improve their ability to work under the framework of that act.
That is work that we’re doing. We’ll continue to work with front-line clinicians to ensure that that act is operating correctly.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, when one person has the floor, I ask that we listen to that person.
A. Olsen: I was listening to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, and that was a long way of not saying no.
The reality is that the two committees that have made recommendations didn’t make recommendations to ensure the operation of the act. Those two committees called for a full review of the Mental Health Act. The language was very clear. It had nothing to do with ensuring the operation of the act.
In fact, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General chose to talk about how effective that committee process was on a variety of other issues around policing. So what we have is a government that is picking and choosing the recommendations that suit their purpose, rather than listening to the good work that’s done by members from all sides of this House.
We’re expanding access to mental health care, investing billions of dollars in an outdated act. Our understanding of mental health and substance use disorders has changed drastically in the last decade, yet B.C.’s Mental Health Act hasn’t been substantially updated for 60 years.
We can’t rely on a broken legislative framework while trying to tackle a modern mental health crisis. Stakeholders, advocates, experts, officers of the Legislature, including the Ombudsperson and the Representative for Children and Youth, and two committees of this House have tasked this government with updating the Mental Health Act. The most recent recommended a comprehensive review within six months of the report’s release — that was the Health Committee — meaning Monday, May 1, of this year.
My question is again to the Premier. Will this government heed the advice of the stakeholders, the experts, the all-party committees and urgently initiate a full review of B.C.’s Mental Health Act?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, I’m grateful for the member’s question and for the advocacy and for all of the work that has been done by the select standing committee, by experts, by all of the clinicians and advocates out in community and in our health authorities who provide input, who provide recommendations, around work that we know is necessary to do in terms of improving how people who are experiencing mental health distress, who are struggling with addictions, are receiving care in our health care system.
We are doing the work to make improvements across the system. We have brought in the rights adviser. We are working with Health Justice on providing better support for clinicians. We know there is much more work to do, and we are doing that work.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
ACTION ON COMMUNITY
SAFETY
E. Sturko: You know, this government has been stoking the flames of the fire of crime, chaos and social disorder occurring in this province. Now, two terms and six years later, when that fire is burning out of control, they’re finally, finally trying to scramble to put the fire out.
Collen Middleton is an organizer of the Enough Is Enough rallies that started in Nanaimo over a year ago, and they’re happening today across this province. He’s present in the gallery today, and he says that the Premier’s policies have “created a monster, a positive feedback loop of addiction and suffering.”
In many ways, Nanaimo has become ground zero for the crisis plaguing communities across this province. Violent crime has more than doubled in that community. Just yesterday a popular downtown coffee shop had its windows smashed, and that was the seventh time it’s been vandalized in just one month. Enough Is enough.
How much longer must communities like Nanaimo endure the violence and total disorder caused by this Premier’s failed catch-and-release policies?
Hon. M. Farnworth: What I will tell the Leader of the Opposition from that comment is the men and women on the front line in our province, the police officers, do an amazing job every single day. The mental health workers in our province do an incredible job every single day. This government gives those men and women the tools that they have been asking for to do that job.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.
Leader of the Opposition, let’s let the minister have his say. You’ve had yours.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It is this government — under the leadership of our Premier and Attorney General, when he was Attorney General — that went to Ottawa. We put on the table, we put on the agenda, the need to make changes to the Criminal Code to deal with the unintended consequences of the changes that were made to the Criminal Code when it came to bail reform.
We said: “We’re experiencing an increase in violence. It’s related to those changes — the inability to keep people behind bars when they should be.” Other provinces agreed with us. Whether it was Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, we were all on the same page.
We made it clear that changes need to be made. We received the commitment from the federal government to get those change so that we have an expanded definition on reverse onus so that if you’re using a weapon, you could be denied bail; if you have a history of violence, you could be denied bail. Those are changes that police wanted to see. Those are changes that we asked for. Those are changes that we’re going to get. We are committed to making communities safe, and we’ll do everything we can to ensure that happens.
E. Sturko: I agree with the Solicitor General. Police are doing a great job. Police are doing a great job, and it’s this government that is failing the police, failing them, failing to address the social and behavioural issues that are causing chaos, failing to address the substance use issues in this province, failing to provide the direction needed by the courts in this province. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. People across this province are saying: “Enough is enough. Enough.”
When will this soft-on-crime Premier end his catch-and-release justice system? At the rally in Penticton, they say: “Rampant crime has left us feeling victimized, and pervasive evidence of homelessness has resulted in each of us feeling hopeless and vulnerable. Our concerns lie in the total lack of appropriate and successful management of those issues by the government.”
Penticton is the community that the Premier threatened as Housing Minister. He bullied the community, saying that if they didn’t accept his plan to warehouse people with severe mental health and addictions issues without proper supports, that he would send 1,000 tents and sleeping bags to create a tent city.
What does this Premier have to say to communities like Penticton and Nanaimo who are now suffering the ongoing consequences of his failed social and justice policies?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Right from day one, this Premier, this government, has taken public safety incredibly seriously, from putting in place the very tools that police have been asking for, which is what the member says we need to do.
Right from day one, we put in place the witness security program, modelled for the situation here in British Columbia that’s resulted in more than 32 cold case convictions of individuals being charged and now behind bars where they belong. Putting in place the first forensic firearms lab so that….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, hon. Member, when you say that nothing is being done, I’m going to point out to you everything that is being done.
That forensic firearms lab saved police time and money, and it allowed them to build stronger cases to put those kinds of people behind bars where they belong.
The largest investment in policing in the history of this province to hire 277 additional RCMP officers for communities right across the province, communities that that side of the House asked for, whether it is Kelowna, whether it is Cranbrook, whether it is Terrace. That’s where they’re going — to those communities. This side of the House is taking action, and we will continue to take action to ensure our communities are safe.
T. Stone: Well, all the words, all the rhetoric, all the bluster in the world from the Public Safety Minister doesn’t take away the fact that we have terrible results by every single measure in British Columbia.
Let’s just take it back to results. We have more overdose deaths than ever before in the province’s history. We have more people on the streets, homeless, than ever before in the province’s history. We have more violent, random attacks taking place in communities right across this province than ever before. We have 40 percent fewer people in jail today under this government than when they came to office. We have more vandalism and crime and social disorder taking place all over British Columbia.
The reality is there is a huge disconnect between what…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, Members.
T. Stone: …the minister and the government says is happening and what is actually being experienced by British Columbians.
People have had enough. They’ve had enough with the soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release policies. They’ve had enough of the Premier’s deliberate policy to warehouse people without supports. British Columbians have had enough of the Premier careening British Columbia down the path of decriminalization without the guardrails that were promised. British Columbians have had enough.
Just yesterday Victoria residents at the local Quadra Heights playground were accosted by two people who proceeded to dig out a crossbow that they had stashed under the merry-go-round at the playground. “We thought that they were looking for lost drugs, but no, they pulled out a crossbow. I couldn’t believe it. I’m still shaken up by it. I went to work and I still couldn’t calm down, so I came home.” This happened at a children’s playground. Parents and families expect this government to do way better than what is the current reality.
My question to the Premier is this. How many more British Columbians need to be put at risk of violence, literally endangered in their neighbourhoods, in parks, in playgrounds and stores and transit buses? How many more have to face that reality before this soft-on-crime Premier puts an end to his failed policies, does his job and gets serious about prioritizing the safety of British Columbians?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Everyone deserves to be safe, and no one should have to deal with the situation that the member outlined. I can tell the honourable member that the two individuals that dug up that weapon were, in fact, arrested by the police. I hope that they are charged.
I’ve also outlined the actions that this government is taking by working with police, working with communities, working with the federal government. I want to remind that member, because he was a cabinet minister at one time, that the Criminal Code is not a policy. The Criminal Code of Canada is federal law. Rulings are made by the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s not a policy; that’s a fact.
What I can tell you is that we’ve needed changes to that Criminal Code, and it is this side of the House that has pushed to get those changes and a commitment from the federal government to change it so that those kinds of individuals can be held.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, we will have order in this chamber.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
When it comes to the social side and looking at the impacts and recognizing that you make investments early on, what did that member and his colleagues think when they sat on this side of the House and cut $187½ million from child and family protection, or $34½ million from youth justice, youth services and youth and child mental health? Those were cuts that had consequences down the road.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: This government is investing in mental health services, investing in health, in housing, and in criminal justice reform to ensure that we are able to deal with those problems and keep our communities safe.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Deputy Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Representative for Children and Youth’s report Missing: Why Are Children Disappearing from B.C.’s Child Welfare System?
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.
In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Health.
In committee room C, I call debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Attorney General.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2023
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
The Chair: I’ll call the Committee of the Whole to order.
I would like to recognize the minister to introduce her staff as we consider continuation of Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.
Hon. K. Conroy: With me today, I have Steve Hawkshaw, the executive director; Andrew Avis, another executive director; Adria Fradley, another executive director; and Ali Chow, a strategic adviser.
On clause 19 (continued).
P. Milobar: Again, I’ll recognize…. I am well aware that there are a lot of clauses to do with the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act within Bill 10. We go up to clause 46, and we’re only on 19. I may be touching on a clause that might be ahead, but it’s still on the same theme.
I’m just trying to get some better understanding of the process the minister is planning on embarking on when the bill gets enacted, given that we’re going to be in, best-case scenario, a year’s worth of limbo as we try to bring on board the OBPS system that these sections are going to lay the groundwork for.
The first process that B.C. was operating under, in terms of industrial credits — it would be net 30 of the greenhouse gas tax or carbon tax — actually wound up being a year or two behind schedule, by the time all the negotiations were done between the government and the individual industries on coming up with what was deemed to be an agreed-upon, world-leading emissions standard that the industry would have to meet to be able to qualify to pay $30 a tonne in carbon tax instead of $50.
We don’t have the OBPS in front of us. It’s still being crafted and worked on. It’s my understanding those discussions still need to take place, in terms of how this will all work within British Columbia.
What is the timeline — the minister’s expectation — to have this in place and to be ready for next year’s budget — and, more importantly, so that industry also knows what to expect heading into next year’s budget?
B. D’Eith: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
B. D’Eith: On behalf of the MLA for Courtenay-Comox, who’s in the Chair and can’t make this introduction, I’d like to welcome Steph Oostenbrink and Pauline MacDougall, from the grade 6 class of Phil and Jennie Gaglardi Academy in Comox.
Welcome.
Please make them feel welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. K. Conroy: Regulations will be finalized by the end of this year, and the OBPS will come into effect on April 1, 2024.
P. Milobar: Given the uncertainty and the missed timelines previously, what is the fallback position if there is not something in place in time, as the minister just laid out?
Hon. K. Conroy: The CleanBC program for industry is well positioned to transition to OBPS. We have systems in place. The ministry also has the organizational capacity to ensure that we meet the deadlines.
P. Milobar: I’ll get into the dollars side of this whole sphere in estimates, recognizing that this isn’t estimates. It’s more to deal with the technical side of implementation.
In terms of the work that will be undertaken, I’m assuming, by this ministry but also by the Ministry of Environment or other ministries…. The Ministry of Finance seems to be appropriate for setting out these schedules of emissions standards.
It seems that there still needs to be a lot of work done in terms of consultation with industry. There are also business groups seeking to be afforded the opportunity to provide their input. Is it the expectation of the minister that the feedback being sought, and the discussions that will happen, to develop the OBPS system will be strictly industry-based? Will there also be industry associations meaningfully worked with as well?
I’ll cite one in particular. The Business Council of B.C. has actually written to the province, seeking consultation on the OBPS.
Hon. K. Conroy: Environment is engaging actively with industry, with industry associations, with industrial operators to ensure there is a smooth transition from the existing two OBPS. That does include the B.C. Business Council.
P. Milobar: Part of the other concern that we’ve been hearing is that this will be done in an open and transparent way. We’ve heard that from both industry but we’ve also heard it from environmental groups trying to get an understanding of how this will be rolled out, how those discussions and what the inputs into the final decisions are and how they are arrived at.
Will the groups that are being engaged with be required to be signing NDAs or will they be free to discuss, with their associations and the broader public, updates of where they feel things are heading with discussions with government?
Hon. K. Conroy: It’s fair to say it would be considered on a case-by-case basis. It will depend on the nature and the stage of consultation. If we’re doing just information gathering then probably don’t need an NDA…. As the consultation goes further along on draft regulations, for instance, those are typically done under NDA.
Particularly, we have to be concerned that we’re not sharing information that could actually be used as insider information, because it’s a tax bill. We want to make sure that if we are having those discussions, that they are under NDA if it’s required.
P. Milobar: Certainly I think we all recognize the need for some, especially on the protected information, especially on an industry when its competitive.
That kind of leads into my next question around competitiveness, because that’s a key piece of all of this. How we keep British Columbia industry competitive with the rest of North America and, indeed, the world? Especially when you’re talking natural resources. It truly is a global market you’re competing with a lot of times, depending on the commodity.
It appears that this year…. Again, this is out of a BCBC report on the OBPS. They’re saying that, this year, absent this new system in place, we’ll have about a $27.83 a tonne disadvantage in comparison to California and Quebec. It actually goes up when you can compare it with electricity only in certain jurisdictions in North America.
I guess I say — in framing up the concern, I guess, with the discussions and the length of time — that that competitiveness each year starts to tip, especially against American jurisdictions, especially with the new IRA act down in the U.S.
Next year, when the minister has indicated the new system will be in place in time for the start of the fiscal, carbon tax will be $80 a tonne. It will have gone from $65 to $80. So the march to $170 is going to be upon us very quickly and very fast.
That means big dollars involved as well. So that’s why I think there’s this worry about transparency out there. If you use LNG alone, just on their first phase, with $170 carbon tax and with the new suggested parameters…. Both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Finance have indicated that if you meet your benchmark, you pay zero. That’s about $680 million a year just to that one project of carbon tax that’s waived. It’s about $27 billion over the 40-year span of that project.
It starts to be very big, big dollars when you’re talking industry. That’s why I think there’s a mood within industry to make sure that it’s being dealt with properly because of the competitive side. But there’s also a mood on the environmental organization side to make sure that things are being done to the standard that will see actual meaningful improvement to emission profiles.
Will recognized environmental groups also be a part of those same tables that industry is sitting at, or will they not be included in the development of the OBPS?
Hon. K. Conroy: The information will be public for comment, and it gives opportunity for comments before regulations are finalized. We expect NGOs and others will come forward and provide comments.
The ministry also engages with the Climate Solutions Council, which has representatives from NGOs, from industry, from academia, from youth, from labour. So it’s a broad group of advisers that provide input as well.
P. Milobar: Within Bill 10, or, I guess, by extension, flowing over to the budgets…. Under the current system, there has always been a dollar figure somewhat attached to the expected dollars associated with the carbon tax offset for industry. Is there anything in Bill 10 that would cap the dollars available for industry under the new OBP system, or will it just be if you meet the standard, you qualify, and the dollar figure is somewhat irrelevant?
As I say, based on current emission profiles, at $170 a tonne, it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8 billion or $10 billion of carbon tax technically being collected in British Columbia. But under OBPS, that’s obviously going to remove a large portion of those dollars.
Is there a cap? Is it going to be capped at $5 billion, $4 billion, that could be returned back to industry, or is it just if industry qualifies, they qualify, and the dollar figure is somewhat irrelevant in that equation?
Hon. K. Conroy: The point of the OBPS is to put a price on pollution. If industry meets and continues to meet the standards, then the OBPS has met its objectives, because the goal is to lower emissions.
P. Milobar: I’ll take it from that, then, there’s no cap on the dollars, which makes sense.
In terms of the overall…. Sorry, I was jumping ahead. You weren’t answering that question.
Actually, you know what? That’s probably good through clause 47. I’ll pick things up on clause 48 with a different section.
Clauses 19 to 47 inclusive approved.
On clause 48.
P. Milobar: Again, I’ve covered off most of the information-sharing types of questions that are in this bill en masse with the previous questions I was asking.
The only…. On this specific one, with the homeowner grant, is there anything within these clauses in Bill 10 that is designed to interface with, or has been created to expressly do that with, the federal government, given that their change to federal tax forms, income tax forms, now requires you to start stating information about your primary residence in terms of date of ownership and things of that…? Is there anything that starts to interconnect based on the changes in Bill 10?
Hon. K. Conroy: I have with me David Sinton, a strategic adviser.
Yes, the provincial government shares information with the federal government. It’s an ongoing thing that we have an agreement on. It’s actually not new to this bill.
P. Milobar: Okay. To be clear, then, the ability to interface with that new piece of information that the federal government is collecting…. The provincial government has access to that information and can start trying to link it in with homeowner grants and other things to do with people’s home ownership, then?
The homeowner grant…. We’ll be coming up on renters rebate questions shortly. There has obviously been a concern in communities around the homeowner grant potentially disappearing, or not. Is there anything in…? I don’t see it in Bill 10. There’s nothing in Bill 10 that sets the stage for regulatory change or something that can be done in an OIC that doesn’t currently exist in terms of the removal of the homeowner grant.
Hon. K. Conroy: No.
Clauses 48 to 62 inclusive approved.
On clause 63.
P. Milobar: Well, I’m glad it’s not just me furiously trying to move through the sections here in the papers. I see the minister and her staff doing the same, so that’s good. It keeps us on equal footing, I think.
So 63 — this is the renters tax credit section. A few questions in this area. In 8.31, there’s the adjusted income, which, it says: “In relation to an eligible individual for a taxation year, means the total of all amounts each of which would be the income for the year of the individual or the individual’s cohabitating spouse or common-law partner if, in computing that income….”
I take this to mean, then, that the threshold to qualify for the renters rebate is a household income. So it’s a combined income. Can the minister refresh all of our memories in terms of what those thresholds are and if it is indeed an actual household income versus an individual’s income?
Hon. K. Conroy: I’ve got some new staff: Matt Krzepkowski, Brad Snell and Jeffrey Krasnick, all directors of income tax.
Households are combined, just so that the member knows. The credit begins up to $60,000 of the combined household. You get the full credit between $60,000 to $80,000. Then the credit begins to phase out.
P. Milobar: Thank you. So this would be, well, first off, trust-based, I guess. So as people file their federal income tax, if they check off “common law”, they’re bound by those. If they’re just dating but haven’t really declared themselves common-law, if they’re just roommates, does that count as…? If I and my girlfriend — to my wife at home, I don’t have a girlfriend; this is just an example — declare ourselves common law, we would only qualify for the $400. Myself and my roommate don’t, and we would qualify for $800. Is that what the minister is saying, if we were under $60,000 each in income?
Hon. K. Conroy: Yeah, the member is right. If he and his fictitious girlfriend just live together, not as common-law, they would both qualify if they were under that $60,000 marker. If three students live together, they would each qualify. As long as their income is under the $60,000, they would qualify for the full amount — if they were just living as friends, not as cohabiting.
P. Milobar: Okay. I guess I can see all sorts of angst. There’s still only one landlord and one rent to be paid. So you could be renting with a friend and have a combined income of $120,000 and get $800 back. If you’re common-law, paying the same landlord on the same type of a unit and the same rent, with a combined income of $120,000, you get zero. Am I stating that accurately?
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes. However, households are families, and there are economies of scale when you are in a family as opposed to single.
P. Milobar: Well, there are economies of scale, but a landlord is still the landlord, and the rent paid is still the rent paid. As I said to my daughter when she wanted to move out when she was 19, I’m not worried about whether you have your rent. But if you’re with three roommates, a landlord doesn’t say: “Well, thanks. You paid your quarter. I’m only kicking the other three people out that didn’t pay.” They want 100 percent of the rent, regardless of which of the four may or may not be able to pay that month. That’s how the system works.
Would it be, then, accurate that the intent and the design of this is meant for low-income people that typically, by virtue of being low-income, would only be able to afford lower-cost housing in the first place?
Hon. K. Conroy: This is meant to support renters.
P. Milobar: Well, I get that, but at a $60,000 threshold before you start having it scaled back and only a $20,000 window of income before it goes to zero, in this day and age, it’s very much — especially household income — geared to lower-income workers. This is understandable, but by virtue of the threshold at $60,000, that would mean that they would only be able to afford lower-cost housing options in the first place.
I guess that leads to my question as to why the definition of “‘rent,’ does not include the following payments,” includes “(d) a payment in respect of a campsite, moorage or a manufactured home site as defined in the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.”
You could have somebody that has bought an older-model trailer but still has to pay pad rent. They were able to afford the older-model trailer; it’s in an older mobile home park. They’re low-income. They have monthly pad rents. They qualify for everything because they’re a renter at that point, yet under this bill, all of those people, which would be a large portion of the lower-income people that this bill is purporting to help, do not qualify.
Can the minister explain the rationale for not allowing pad rents in mobile home parks if you’re meeting all the other requirements? It’s not family-owned; it’s not a family member that’s renting you the pad rent. Why the differentiation from someone living in a basement suite, or someone living in a one-bedroom apartment, to somebody that has to pay rent for a pad for their mobile home to be on?
H. Yao: I seek leave to make a quick introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
H. Yao: I would like to take a moment to welcome St. Francis of Assisi School and the grades 5 and 6 students.
On behalf of the Attorney General, I also want to welcome Abby Murray.
Thank you so much for joining us today in the chamber, observing us from the gallery. Welcome, everyone.
Debate Continued
Hon. K. Conroy: If they own a manufactured home, they may qualify for the homeowner’s grant. So they would be covered by that. If they don’t own it, they would then qualify for the renters grant, because they would be renting. The staff did think of that when they brought this portion of the bill in.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.
The House resumed; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. B. Bailey moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: This House will be adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); F. Donnelly in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.
We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $28,526,258,000 (continued).
Hon. A. Dix: I want to just note for the record that the member had questions about a contract with RKL Health Informatics, which we responded to in writing. If there are more questions, of course, we would be happy to take those on.
I want to also let the House know that amongst the officials who are with us today are Leanne Heppell, the chief ambulance officer of B.C., and Neil Lilley, the chief operating officer of B.C. emergency health services.
S. Bond: I appreciate those updates from the minister. I appreciate the arrangement to allow us to deal with emergency health this morning. I’m really encouraging the minister to help us get through as much material as possible. The hours are limited, and all of these topics matter to me and to people in British Columbia.
Before we move to emergency health, I’d like to follow up on a line of questioning that was actually started by the member for Saanich North and the Islands. It began last month, in the estimates with the Minister of Children and Family Development.
I have met, as have a number of people in our caucus, with a number of people who are advocating on behalf of the Vancouver Island eating disorder program. There is significant concern about the fact that services have been impacted.
I went back and looked at the discussion that took place in estimates. The fact of the matter is that there are not enough services. People, particularly adults, who have an eating disorder need help. In fact, what we’ve seen is adults on Vancouver Island who are facing significant barriers to treatment and care. We know that would be the case in many other places in B.C., and we simply need to do better.
When the debate took place…. I appreciate my colleague from the Green Party raising these issues. When speaking to the Minister of Children and Families, she responded: “There’s work going on to align this particular clinic with other models in other health authorities. We’re working with the Mental Health and Addictions Ministry, Health and with Island Health to have a look at the future for the clinic.”
Can the minister tell me today exactly what work has been done? What resources will be provided for people who are desperately in need of help? They have been here to the Legislature. They have met with us individually. Health, apparently, has a role to play in that. Is there funding being provided to ensure that there are services and supports in place, not just on Vancouver Island but across the province, for those people with eating disorders?
Hon. A. Dix: I think the issue on Vancouver Island…. I will endeavour — on the broader issue of eating disorders, I don’t want to take a lot of time. This was an issue that I raised frequently as an opposition critic for Health, and it has been raised back along a number of years, about the adequacy of overall services, but I won’t give a long discussion of that everywhere.
There’s an issue on Vancouver Island with respect to adult and children’s mental health services. One is provided through the health authority, and the other is provided through MCFD. Those two services — it’s my expectation that they’ll be aligned. There have been new resources going through the health authorities for adult mental health services, and it’s my intention, my belief, that those will be aligned.
I’ll provide more information not weeks from now but later today, to the member, to be clear about where we are in that process.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I would appreciate, certainly, follow-up information. It is incredibly devastating to hear people’s personal stories of distress and their inability to get the service that they need. They want to go on and be able to live productive, healthier lives, so we are deeply concerned about that.
I will look forward to a further update from the minister about what’s being done on Vancouver Island. I’m very concerned about the fact that multiple ministries are involved and it’s: “Okay, it’s over to Health; it’s Mental Health. People just want the issue resolved on Vancouver Island.”
I’m going to ask my colleague to ask his question about emergency health.
D. Clovechok: Thanks to my colleague for the time.
I just want to say at the onset of this…. It’ll be a quick question, but I do want to acknowledge the work that the minister and I have done in my riding from Revelstoke to Kimberley. It’s been successful, and hopefully this question will end up with success as well.
As the minister will know, Columbia River–Revelstoke is a tourism community, by and large. I’m going to use the Columbia Valley as an example of this. Our populations increase dramatically over the summer from May to October. In the Columbia Valley, that population increase is 30,000 to 40,000 people through tourism.
Also, another issue…. That’s the first issue, which is not an issue. We’re very grateful for it.
But also, we’ve got Albertans who are coming and using our emergency in Invermere, a little, tiny eight-bed hospital with amazing docs, nurses and support staff. They’re coming across and using our emergency because they triage at 12, 14 hours in Calgary, so they’re coming to us.
Also, with the new decriminalization of opioids and other drugs, we are expecting, as one policeman told me, the great trek west. We’re going to see people coming. It’s legal in British Columbia now, so we’re assuming that we’re going to see higher usages.
A couple of things come out of that narration. We’re already stretched in terms of our resources. I’m going to be talking to the Public Safety Minister about this, as far as policing, but from a health perspective, we have two cars in Invermere. They’re busy all the time, as you will know. With the increase of population, with the increase of drug usage, which we’re assuming, and the increase of Calgary people coming into our hospitals, huge pressure is being put on our resources.
From May to October, does the minister have any idea or will the minister provide any additional resources for these communities that I represent through those busy times? We don’t have enough.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m not sure I agree with all the premises of the question. The member will know that, especially in his constituency, we’ve made significant investments in the ambulance service. We talked at length about Revelstoke and Golden. Revelstoke, 24-7; Golden, 24-7; Invermere, 24-7; and Kimberley, 24-7. This is a change and an increase in services that the member advocated for, that we’ve talked about on a number of occasions and that have occurred. This really reflects the transformation of the ambulance service both in the region and in the province, in rural, remote communities.
In addition, with the rural and remote framework, we added an ambulance to the region, to provide additional supports. Obviously, there are other communities. Field — I was talking to an ambulance paramedic from Field last night, actually, at length on this question. But I won’t take up too much of the time to talk about ambulance service in Field. It’s an SOC, and we’re working through, now, the collective agreement, the increase in service in communities such as that.
We see an increase in ambulance services and ambulance response. We obviously monitor it through the years. The circumstances the member is talking about are not new to this year. It is something that we will obviously continue to monitor.
He’s quite right that B.C…. There’s always a discussion about B.C. and Alberta, that we care for a lot more Alberta patients in B.C. than they care for B.C. patients in Alberta. That’s because of policy changes they’ve made in the last number of years because of the challenges facing their health care system. We’re ahead of them in most measures of surgery and other things, and that means we provide more care to Albertans than they provide to British Columbians. We’re not going to respond in kind by limiting that care. We’re going to provide great care when it comes.
I’ve heard the hon. member’s representation. He knows that we’re very responsive when we hear from things in community, and we’ll clearly be monitoring that this summer.
I’d also note that these increases in services, this increase in permanent staff in the region is going to transform the Ambulance Service and, we believe, will result in better service. I think the result of the most recent collective agreement with CUPE Local 873, the ambulance paramedics….
It was supported by 96 percent of ambulance paramedics, which has to be a remarkable thing. I know some ambulance paramedics, and sometimes we don’t have an easy time agreeing on the dinner menu, so 96 percent demonstrates the success of the union and our management at working together to resolve these very issues.
These issues, the issues of communities like Revelstoke, like Golden, like Kimberley, were clearly issues at the table that we worked through. We’re going to continue to do so, and I appreciate the member’s representation.
S. Bond: Thank you to my colleague for that question and his concern, always, for his residents, the people he represents.
I want to spend a few minutes…. Thank you to representatives from BCEHS who are here today. I think all of us agree that it’s a pretty straightforward principle that if you dial 911, you should expect you’re going to get some help in British Columbia.
Earlier this week there was a story that a father called an ambulance for his daughter, who had suddenly lost her hearing and vision and began sweating. I would imagine that most families would feel pretty concerned about that. The father called 911, and he got a message the first time, “Hang up and call again,” which he did. Ten minutes later, he was passed through to a dispatcher. Even still, they had to take her to the hospital themselves.
Does the minister agree that perhaps the first time someone calls 911, they should actually get an answer?
Hon. A. Dix: When people call 911, of course, there are two processes. There’s an E-Comm process, and then, if it’s for ambulance, they’ll ask you what you need, and it’ll go to the ambulance process. Both require…. As the member will know, there has been significant investment by the government, in support of E-Comm in B.C., in the last while. There are some issues there that are being resolved.
There are also issues for BCEHS, I would say, just to look at the dispatcher side that we’ve moved from in the last short period, in the last year. This is higher, since we last were in estimates, from 248 dispatchers to 281. This is a critical issue, this issue of dispatch, to be able to respond to people appropriately when they come and then dispatch.
Obviously, every call that comes into the Ambulance Service is triaged for the severity of need and the severity of response. That goes without saying. I understand, and certainly, will review the issue. I think the issue was in the newspaper, or a complaint was made around this case, which I think involved someone from Langley. I may be mistaken. Every time that happens, we obviously review that to ensure that that doesn’t happen.
There is occasionally a delay, because — even when you have substantially increased the number of dispatchers — if, at some point, a lot of phone calls come in, there may be some issues. So some advice may go out to say, “This is what’s happening” or “Call us back,” and so on, and you go into a priority queue.
In any event, what we believe, anyway, is that substantial investment was required in dispatch in the province. That’s why we’ve provided that significant increase over time. Really, in the last few years, the total is from 235 to 281, which is a substantial net increase in dispatch.
Obviously, those dispatchers — and the member, I know, agrees with this — do an exceptional job responding to people in a moment where, I agree, they’re calling 911, and they need to hear a professional response on the phone. Our ambulance dispatchers do an excellent job. We feel we need more of them, and that’s why more of them have been hired.
S. Bond: Again, I want to thank the representatives that are here today for the work that they do, and all of their members. It’s not about them. It’s about a system that is under extraordinary pressure in British Columbia. Whether it’s ambulances or it’s nurses, doctors and all of the health care professionals, it takes an enormous toll.
I will just remind the minister that this person got a recorded message. They believed they were having a health emergency of a daughter. The message was: “If this is an emergency, please hang up and dial 911 again.” I would assume that if you dial 911 in the first place, you would be thinking that it is an emergency. I just want to remind the minister that this particular family talked about what an absolutely terrible experience it was.
I understand that additional resources have been added, but there’s still work to be done. Let’s take a look, for example, at what we have seen. On March 22, 2023, paramedics in this province responded to 205 overdose calls. That is the single highest number that has ever been recorded in a single day. The previous record was in January of 2022.
My question to the minister: in light of the overdose incidents that are increasing — we know that the numbers are absolutely horrific and tragic — are there specific additional resources being provided to ensure that front-line staff are able to take care of their own mental health as well? We have increasing call numbers. The pressure on paramedics in this province is extraordinary. That continues to climb. Could the minister speak to us about what we’re doing to ensure that front-line staff are being properly cared for?
Hon. A. Dix: A few points. First of all, with respect to mental health supports but also with respect to ambulance paramedics. Just for the record, I agree with the member — and the overdose public health emergency is part of it — that we’re also seeing, and we have seen, a very large increase in what we call purple and red calls, the most serious calls that ambulance paramedics receive, the ones they have to get to right now.
We’ve seen an increase across a range of conditions, including mental health and addictions. That’s one of the significant ones but also conditions such as heart attack and stroke.
Just to say that the number of full-time paramedics has increased from 1,375 to 2,368 since I’ve been Minister of Health. That’s a 72 percent increase in full-time paramedics. The number of part-time paramedics has increased by 87 percent. What we’re seeing — and that’s significant, I think — is a major investment in, and a transformation of, the service.
I wanted to note as well that we’ve added…. Some of this has been through the recent collective agreement, ratified by ambulance paramedics, which very much focused on these issues. The union wanted to, as well. There have been substantial investments to the critical incident stress management program with $5 million provided to that. A joint committee was created in April ’22 to work through these issues. We’ve seen an increase in supports and clinician referrals, of 69 percent since 2021, which demonstrates both the demand, as the member notes, and the needs.
We’re doing an evaluation of that program, which we’re expecting shortly. We’ve added a director of mental health for the system, to support our ambulance teams. We’ve added additional team members to the critical incident stress management program. All of those issues — and the work that we’ve done, together with our union — have made a significant effect.
I’ll just say that in 2022, December ’22, it took approximately one to two weeks for a referral to a clinician to be complete in the service. As of March 31 of this year, the average wait time for a referral request to be accepted by clinician is approximately one to three days. So we went, in this period, demonstrating the priority and the impact of that, from one to two weeks for a referral to one to three days. This all reflects the strong commitment of our leadership at BCEHS.
I, again, want to introduce Leanne Heppell and Neil Lilley who represent the leadership and really represent our extraordinary paramedics around the province.
But the commitment, especially, of CUPE Local 873 to support their members as well…. You see the real tangible improvements that have been made in terms of those supports needed. Because the work, as the member rightly says, in the time of two public health emergencies has been exceptional. The increase in the calls…. That means the response of ambulance paramedics has increased commensurate with the massive increase in resources.
S. Bond: Under the recruitment strategy that was announced, were there specific targets put in place for 2022-23, ’23-24 in terms of paramedics, dispatchers, all of the personnel that are covered under that recruitment strategy? Can the minister tell me: were there targets put in place? And can he provide me with an update on current vacancies?
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just go through some of the information for the hon. member. I want to make the point that this has been an exceptional period of growth for ambulance paramedics.
There are two issues, I would argue. One is to ensure, obviously, for the public, that they received that response that we all know. Two, that we support ambulance paramedics. The major issue has not been recruitment, although there’s always a challenge in recruitment. But you can see what we’ve done.
We’ve added, in 2021, 539 permanent regular full-time paramedic positions and 71 irregular full-time positions. In November ’22, we added 222 permanent new full-time positions. If you look at the actual hours worked, the productive hours increased by 10 percent over time. This is an important question — increased by 41 percent the number of hours prepared by ambulance paramedics. The actual hours — that’s not all this discussion of positions and everything else — worked by dispatchers increased by 13.7 percent, and overtime increase by 15.9 percent.
So we have a dramatic effort being made to increase the service. You see the success of that recruitment, and we’re taking extraordinary steps to continue that.
I think the one thing that I would say, and I was just looking at the number here, is the one area where we…. Why it links to the previous question is what we have seen, as well, is a significant increase in ambulance paramedics off work in the last number of years. It’s what drives the commitment to support mental health services in that respect.
When someone is off work, obviously that both puts pressure on overtime but also takes away some of the impact of the very significant increases in the numbers of ambulance paramedics.
I’ll just give the member a sense of this for the last three years. We have, on leave full-time, 219 paramedics on leave in 2021, 270 on leave in 2022 and 292 on leave in 2023. So the issue that we have in the ambulance service and why we are so committed with the union to work on supports that allow people to deal with critical incidents and also come back to work is because it has a real impact on the health human resources in the ambulance service as well.
So you see the ambition — the increases at the Justice Institute, the increases in our partnerships with other paramedic training institutes in the province. All of that is having success, but we have to continue to add, especially on the mental health side, to increase significantly and continue to have strong supports so ambulance paramedics who are full-time but off work get back to work.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I’m a bit concerned about time here. I will lay out several questions and perhaps the minister can come back after the break and answer them for me.
I appreciate the update on the work that has been done, but it’s clear there’s more work to be done. I am deeply concerned about, as I have expressed continuously through the last four days now, the sense of moral distress that people in the health care system are feeling about not being able to actually manage the jobs that they care about and that they are called to do.
I want to raise this point. Certainly, adding additional paramedics are one thing, but as importantly is how many additional cars are on the road. I’m wondering if the minister can provide what regions and stations have net new cars and shifts been added to. That actually is as important as having additional paramedics.
I want to also…. I’ll just lay these questions out before Mr. Chair hands the note over.
We also, yesterday…. I want to, obviously, make sure the context is correct. The Ambulance Paramedics and Dispatchers of B.C. have been clear that they’ve appreciated the investments that have been made, but yesterday they made several, what I think are, very important and relevant points that need to be pursued. One of them is the fact that hey talked about recruitment and actually getting people on the ground. Their spokesperson said: “Despite recruitment efforts that have drawn more applicants, there are bottlenecks in training and hiring. A lot of the delay is in the human resources system within BCEHS.”
I’d like the minister to respond to that at some point, about what we’re doing to. It’s great if we can recruit more people. The most important thing is to train them and get them out into the system.
The other issue that was raised, and I certainly continue to hear this across the province…. Progress, yes, but we want to make sure that we are reducing the delay in ambulance response times, especially in rural and remote communities. The minister and I have probably not often been in the position of having to dial 911. But I can assure you that the feeling of helplessness and frustration when there is not an appropriate response time….
The concern that was expressed was the need for a review in terms of how many resources are needed in larger centres, because the point that was made is that resources are being taken from surrounding smaller communities. The example that was used was Victoria. Staff is being pulled in from places like Sooke, because we need more ambulances just to meet the demand and the pressures that have built up over the years.
Again, what that does is put other communities at risk, when we’re madly trying to staff up in larger urban centres. Is the minister prepared to agree to a review that actually looks at how resources are deployed and what happens when we have to pull those resources out of smaller communities? I’m wondering if he could respond to that.
Maybe that review is underway, but it certainly, as I understand it, hasn’t been completed, or we’re not even sure what the schedule is and if the report would be released to the public. I think those are critically important questions as we try to sort out how we are going to ensure that people have appropriate response times.
This is the statement that concerned me. He says: “I think back to what happened during the heat dome in British Columbia, where over 600 frail elderly British Columbians died.” One of the concerns…. You can imagine how personnel feel when they can’t get there, when ambulances were simply overwhelmed and couldn’t respond.
I remember the story of the family that was desperate for help, and what did they do? They drove their loved one to the driveway of a fire hall, just trying to find somebody who would help them. That person died in the driveway of the fire hall.
So here’s the quote: “It’s not all wonderful as described and we’re seeing significant delays, and unless we get a handle on this, we’ll keep seeing those delays.” Here’s the concern as we get into the busy season.
I’m wondering if the minister and EHS representatives can talk about what we are doing to be prepared for the busy season. We’ve already seen the highest number of overdose calls on a single day. That was in March. I’m assuming the busy season refers to wildfire, heat domes and all of the things that extreme weather relates to. So if we’re not managing now — not my words but the words of the representative from paramedics and dispatchers — are we ready for the busy season?
The Chair: Minister, I’ll ask you to provide a brief remark and move the motion.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m going to say a few words, I think brief. Is that brief or brie?
Thank you to the member for the question. I’ll just make a number of points. During the COVID-19 pandemic, which surely was the busy season…. In fact, I think the experience of ambulance paramedics is that the busy season is pretty much 365 days a year, without exception, and since I get information on ambulance calls every day, I can attest to the fact that it’s busy.
I’ll just make a couple of points. In rural response times, rural median response times have gone down by 48 seconds for purple calls since 2018, which is, I would say, a real achievement of the ambulance service, and that’s been a priority of ours. We put in, on April 20, 2021, a rural and remote framework to improve services because we knew we had to get to people, particularly in times of COVID-19. Or should I say 2020, the times of COVID-19, to get people to the hospital more quickly.
We’ve added significantly to cars on the ground. We’ve added significantly to airplanes. We’re about to significantly improve helicopter service, air ambulance helicopter service in the province. We’ve added 125 ground ambulances. We’ll be happy to provide more information on that. So more ambulance paramedics, more dispatchers, more cars, more airplanes, more helicopters.
In some areas, especially on the most severe calls, we’ve done exceptionally well. I would note that the number of the most severe calls, which I referred to earlier, is increasing. The number of those purple calls that I referred to, the number of them that we face across the province in every year, has increased in five years, in a time of population growth of approximately 6 percent, by about 26 percent.
That indicates that when you’re talking about reducing response times on purple calls in the context of the number of calls going up by 26 percent, that is heroic work by ambulance paramedics.
I want to thank, on behalf of the people of the province, the chair of the board, Jim Chu; Leanne Heppell; who became our chief ambulance officer immediately after the period of the heat dome; Neil Lilley; and the whole team, every ambulance paramedic, every dispatcher in the province. I know that all members of the House, regardless of what side of the House they’re on, agree and appreciate…. Our gratitude to them for all their work in this exceptional time.
And with that, I move that the House rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); J. Routledge in the chair.
The committee met at 11:19 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call the Committee of Supply, Section C, to order.
We are meeting today to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.
I will now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 14: ministry operations, $643,641,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. I look forward to the dialogue and the questions from the members opposite. I want to welcome my great team at Attorney General. I’m going to read all their names out, and I want to thank them for their participation and all their hard work.
We have Barbara Carmichael, the Deputy Attorney General; Tracy Campbell; Peter Juk; Jenny Manton; Haiqa Cheema; Colleen Spier; Paul Craven; and Eva Ross. That’s everybody in the room.
M. de Jong: Thanks to the minister and the officials accompanying her and assisting her. Just an administrative matter. For the balance of the morning I’ll pose some questions. Our colleague from the Green Party will, for scheduling reasons, resume at one o’clock. I’m not certain what areas he wishes to canvass over the time that we’ve agreed to allocate to him.
I’ll be concentrating on some areas involving — surprise, surprise — public safety and then move from there. I expect that will take us through the balance of the day, but we’ll see how that goes.
We’ll start with a general question to try and contextualize the conversation we’re going to have. In the Attorney’s mind, recognizing that she has assumed this position relatively recently, but she’s now the spokesperson for the government on these important matters: is B.C. a safer place to live today than it was five or six years ago?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for this very important question. We often talk about it quite a bit, in the House and certainly politically.
I have to say that communities across the country have been dealing with specific challenges when it comes to safety. Those challenges we are responding to in different ways. That is in our safer communities action plan, which has targeted responses to the challenges with safety that communities are coming to us with.
M. de Jong: Well, to be fair, challenges in this area have existed. They have existed prior to this Attorney General taking her position, prior to this government assuming office, and will undoubtedly continue to exist in the future.
My question was more specific than that, though. Because I have found, over the time that I have spent in this place and elsewhere, that we’re not likely to have any success addressing a problem if we don’t acknowledge that a problem exists.
So I’ll try it again. On a comparative basis with the Attorney General, who has some very specific responsibilities around the criminal justice system and the administration of justice: to her mind, is British Columbia a safer place to live in today than it was five or six years ago?
Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I think the question calls for a very subjective answer. I base my perception on policy directives, and so does everybody in the ministry, based on facts and evidence that we see in communities. We’ve been very public, and I certainly have been, on our focus on repeat violent offenders and the impacts of COVID specifically on communities related to that.
So to that regard, I think the member has heard me very often talk about how we think we need better tools in our justice system to address repeat violent offenders. And then our safer communities action plan is about responding to those impacts of COVID.
M. de Jong: That was somewhat helpful. In assessing the question of public safety, which I presume the Attorney would agree is a legitimate exercise for us to engage in, in this place and in this committee and during these estimates, what variables would the Attorney direct us to, to render an opinion?
Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. It’s actually a very broad question. I’m going to start by saying that obviously, my role, as the member knows, in public safety is as Attorney General, so any questions related to the broader Ministry of Public Safety and the choices made for that would be obviously up to Minister Farnworth. But what I can tell you is with the question about what variables we consider with respect to the Attorney General’s office. Of course, that’s varied and very comprehensive and depending on the issue.
First, I would say we have a team of experts within our ministry that have a level of expertise in their area, that are constantly engaging and communicating with front-line workers, assessing programs that are in place. We have, obviously, our independent advisers, like the B.C. Prosecution Service.
Our role is to respond to the needs of the justice system to do the work that it needs to do — for example, making investments for one of the largest calls for Crown counsel resources, so hiring 40 new Crown counsel was a response to some of the needs. Standing up the repeat violent offenders initiative was also a response.
We rely on many actors, some of them independent, some of them internal to the ministry, and many factors. I’m sure we will go into details as we get into different programs and I’ll be able to provide a more specific answer.
M. de Jong: Well I’m going to invite the Attorney to provide a little more specific answer now. Whilst I understand that she occupies a role, and a very important one, but not a singular role. She mentioned her colleagues and the fact that these matters cross ministerial lines. In the case of the criminal justice system, it is a central and determinative role.
I’m trying to ascertain the degree to which the Attorney, as the spokesperson for the government, believes there is a problem. So I can say to the committee…. And the Attorney is correct that we’ve had these conversations in the House in another context that doesn’t lend itself well to a kind of discussion that we can have here.
I can say, or my colleague can say, that we have a criminal justice, public safety, criminal violence problem, but our views on that matter are far less relevant than the Attorney’s. So in determining whether or not there is an issue…. And she has mentioned peripherally some of the things that she and the government believe they could or should do. I first need to know or would like to know, and the committee would like to know, the degree to which she believes there is a problem and on what basis she comes to that conclusion. Surely there are….
If there is a subjective element to this…. But surely it is based in part on actual data. Surely the ministry and, by extension, the minister, in determining whether there is a problem or not, look to certain variables as evidence and would cite that data as either supportive of the proposition that the problem is not as great as the opposition alleges, or it is, in fact….
What are those variables? In the areas for which the ministry and the minister have responsibility, the criminal justice system, surely there are indicators and variables that she looks at to determine whether or not and the extent to which we have a problem. What are they?
Hon. N. Sharma: I just would like to ask for clarification from the member. I think it would be helpful if we were narrowing. I’ve spoken earlier about how we’ve very publicly — and again, in this committee — talked about what we’re concerned about with repeat violent offenders. So I’m happy to provide the basis for that, for the reasons that we’re taking action on that or calling for reform.
I just want clarity of what the member is asking — if he could narrow it a little bit.
M. de Jong: I don’t mean to be argumentative, but the minister has now been around this place long enough to know what I am seeking.
I could make a speech for 15 minutes, time and time again, making my allegations. I am far more interested to know whether the Attorney, as the spokesperson for the government in this case, believes we have a public safety issue and, if she does, on what basis she comes to that conclusion. It is for her to say, not me. It is for her to say whether or not we have a public safety issue and point to the areas that convince her that is so — and to put that on the record.
Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question that the member had. Of course I’m concerned about crime. I think every time we hear about violent offences in the news…. Of course that’s of concern to me, as Attorney General. We have done quite a bit of work to fill the groundwork and to figure out what policy changes we need to make to address that.
To the member’s point about how I use to guide what solutions…. I’m sure the member knows about the LePard-Butler report. It went out there and really examined the holistic approach to what’s needed to address crime, specifically the violent offender.
My piece of it, as Attorney General — I can speak to that; I can’t speak to the other ministries that were involved in the other part of it — is to make sure that the justice system has the tools that it needs to respond to the types of crime we’re seeing. That, as I think the member has heard me say many times, led us to ask for reform to the bail system. It led us to stand up the repeat offenders intervention initiative, which is focused on the justice system better circling around repeat violent offenders, and a number of other initiatives held by other ministries that are part of it. That’s under our safer communities action plan.
The Chair: I’m just thinking about the hour and whether or not you want to wrap it up now. I know we started late.
Interjection.
The Chair: Okay.
M. de Jong: All right. Well, we’re making a little bit of progress here.
I’d like to be more specific. The Attorney, in her answer and in her previous answer, as well, referred to challenges that communities are facing and concerned about. She has indicated that she shares concerns about those challenges.
I’d like her to be more specific about what she sees those challenges to be and whether they have gotten worse. I think those are legitimate questions to pose to the person in charge, the justice minister for the province. Incidents of violent criminal activity. Is it the Attorney’s view that that situation has gotten worse over the course of the last five or six years? Let’s start there.
Hon. N. Sharma: I think I’ve been clear by saying that I do have concerns about very specific types of criminal acts. I think our government has been clear about our concerns, and that’s why they’ve informed our actions.
Now, the reason that we’ve come to that is…. We’ve worked with urban mayors. We worked with experts like LePard-Butler. We take advice from the experts and the independent ones in our justice system. Again, my job as Attorney General is to make sure that the justice system has the tools that it needs to respond to the challenges, no matter what they are.
Communities across the country have seen the impacts of COVID. It’s not uncommon to hear about acts, whether it’s transit in Toronto or…. When I met with the other Attorneys General and public safety ministers across the country, when we went to Ottawa, they all raised very specific concerns about the impacts of COVID and how that’s showing up with people. I think it was bear spray in Manitoba. There are very specific challenges that each community is facing.
We respond by hearing and listening to what’s happening in communities. What I’ve heard from mayors and councils and, certainly, our part of the justice system side of that is…. It is a small group of people that are causing the repeat offences. That’s why our programs are designed to invest, at least on the justice system side, and to bolster the resources — to address that but also to call upon the federal government for better tools.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.