Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)

OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 2, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 319

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.


CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Hon. M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

K. Kirkpatrick

A. Walker

R. Merrifield

D. Routley

T. Shypitka

K. Paddon

Oral Questions

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Kahlon

K. Kirkpatrick

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Dean

L. Doerkson

Hon. J. Whiteside

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Fraud Risk and Financial Statements: B.C. Public Sector, Part 2, May 2023

Reports from Committees

P. Milobar

J. Rice

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

D. Clovechok

Hon. K. Conroy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

R. Merrifield


TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2023

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s my pleasure to welcome the team at the Indigenous justice secretariat that’s here with us today, somewhere. We have Colleen Spier, Irina Sladecek, Lisa Poeckert, John Nsabimana, Erna Mazer, Kaitlyn Jep­son, Lindsay Hack and Tom Daly.

I just want to appreciate all the work you do that’s really important and welcome you to the House.

Hon. A. Mercier: I’d just like to welcome to the gallery I think a group of probably the smartest kids in British Columbia, at least smarter than I am, the grade 12 students from Brookswood Secondary School, from Katie Glover’s political studies class. I believe there’s another class here as well.

I met with them a couple of weeks ago. Really bright. It’s very clear there are some future Langley MLAs in the mix. I’m hoping not for a couple of elections.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

We’re going to be by your office after QP to say hi.

Hon. H. Bains: Members and staff from the Construction Maintenance and Allied Workers are here all week to meet with the ministers and MLAs to talk about issues that are really important to their 8,000 members.

[10:05 a.m.]

I had a very productive discussion with them yesterday. I’m really glad that their commitment to worker safety and making their working conditions better is unwavering. I was really impressed with their approach to this.

In the House today, they are here to watch question period.

Chris Wasilenchuk, CMAW president.

Mike Jensen, CMAW first vice-president.

Jan Morris, CMAW Local 2423 president.

Mark Miller, CMAW Local 2300 business rep.

Shawn Sly, CMAW Local 506 business rep.

Neil Niles, CMAW VP of underrepresented groups.

Ronette Paul, CMAW Local 1346 business rep.

Ron Kneller, CMAW Local 1998 business rep.

Andrew Brown, CMAW Local 2020 rep from the Vancouver Island–Sunshine Coast region.

Ron Harry, CMAW director of business development and external relations.

Please join with me and give them a very warm welcome.

I want to thank you personally for the work that you do to improve the lives and health and safety of the workers that you represent.

D. Routley: I have four guests today.tamanaw

The first two: Geoff Dawe is pulp and paper workers Canada Local 2 president, national vice-president and a power engineer, and he’s accompanied by Mike Hearsey, vice-president of Local 2. Both of these gentlemen are fully committed to the health and safety of their co-workers. I’m so impressed by the commitment they make to Crofton. The Crofton mill is in the midst of a transition to a more sustainable future. These two people, above that, are committed to the families I represent.

I would like to thank them for being here, and could the members please welcome them.

D. Clovechok: I’m absolutely thrilled today to introduce a friend of mine, who I haven’t seen in about 25 years, Sherri Clair, who was in the tourism business. I remember, as a younger man, Chateau Lake Louise and other hotels. She’s moved to Ottawa and now works for the Canadian Propane folks. Sherri Clair is actually an amazing tourism mentor for my daughter, too, who is now a CEO in tourism. So would the House make Sherri feel very welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to give a shout-out this morning — I don’t think she’s here — to Kat Hartwig from Brisco. She’ll be a recipient of the 2023 community awards later on.

Hon. N. Cullen: I have a number of our team from Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship joining us here in Victoria today. From the WLRS team, which has just turned one year old, our ministry: Samantha Gysbers; Brenda Larkin, Jolene Shepherd, Crystal Nelligan, for­merly Philpott; Cindy Turner, Jaime Gabrielle, Ramona Braund, Allie Nurse, Erynn Neeson, Diana McNeill, Kerri Davis, Emily Stein and Trisha Ng.

They’re all from the WLRS Ministry, and they all represent the LUPPE division, otherwise affectionately known as “Loopy.” I’d like the House to make them feel very welcome. The Loopy division of WLRS, a different Loopy than other Loopys. They are an excellent team. They support us very well and keep our ministry on track.

Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: The other two guests I have joining me today are my two CAs, Pam Cooling and Sarah Miller. I’d like the House to help make welcome the people who make the office run.

S. Furstenau: I have two guests in the gallery today. Isla Fordyce is a grade seven student at York House. She reached out to me two years ago, shortly after the election, and asked to do an interview. I obliged and invited her to come and shadow for the day, and here she is.

She’s the head of her student council, enjoys social studies, math, science, basketball and volleyball. Her team was the provincial champion team last year.

[10:10 a.m.]

Isla has brought a guest with her, her dad, Dr. Chris Fordyce. He’s the director of cardiac intensive care unit at Vancouver General Hospital and associate professor of cardiology at UBC.

Would the House please make Isla and Dr. Fordyce most welcome.

B. Banman: I have four guests that I would like to introduce today. I have Devin and Vanessa Campbell of the Abbotsford Flying Club. They have brought with them two very special guests all the way from Querétaro, Mexico: Danna and Anyah Rodriguez.

Now, I have to tell you that when I met Danna at a local restaurant, she did not believe I was a politician. Well, I know some of you still don’t believe I’m a politician, but that’s another story. The reason for that, which I think will be poignant to all of us, is I did not have an armed security detail with me.

So I would like for the House to not only welcome them and show them great British Columbia hospitality but for all of us to be mindful of how very, very special this place called Canada and British Columbia is. Would you please give them a huge, warm welcome to the House.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 28, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023. This bill makes amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, the Commercial Transport Act and the Insurance (Vehicle) Act to shift the obligation to license and insure a leased vehicle to the named lessee. The bill also makes consequential amendments to other acts because of this shift of legal obligations for leased vehicles.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ROTARY CLUB OF
WEST VANCOUVER SUNRISE
AND RIDE FOR RESCUE FUNDRAISER

K. Kirkpatrick: Rotary Club of West Vancouver Sunrise is an energetic service club consisting of committed individuals who make an impact not only in our community but globally. For over 32 years, this group of dedicated Rotarians has embarked on many projects which have truly made a difference. In fact, it was actually Rotary that initially piqued my interest in Canadian politics, as they sponsored me way back in high school to visit Parliament in Ottawa and meet the Prime Minister.

While Rotary Sunrise has generous sponsors and partners, they also fundraise for the projects they support. One of their signature community fundraisers is an event called the Rotary Ride for Rescue. This is a cycling event where participants ride up Cypress Mountain. How it works is that an individual or a team of cyclists registers their commitment to ride in the event. Then, in the weeks leading up to the ride, they gather donations from family, friends and community members in support of their efforts.

The ride starts at the corner of Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress Lane, where cyclists climb to an elevation of 900 metres and travel a distance of over 14 kilometres to the finish line at the Cypress Bowl Nordic ski area. There’s also a mountain bike route, as well as a virtual ride for those who want to partake at home. Guess which one I might be doing?

The event benefits, among other great causes, North Shore Rescue, hence the name of the event. North Shore Rescue relies on donations for things like critical ongoing member training and regular updating of equipment to help them with their important search and rescue work. They are very appreciative of the financial contributions Rotary Sunrise makes to their organization.

This year the ride takes place on June 10, marking the 12th anniversary of the event. And while I won’t be riding myself, I will be joining Rotary ride chair Karen Harrison at the beautiful Cyprus Pop-Up Village to congratulate participants on their successful quest up the mountain.

[10:15 a.m.]

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SONG

A. Walker:

Thank you, Speaker, my dear friend,
I hope you’ll hear me to the end.
I have this song for all to sing.
Now I hope you all will all join in.
Hey ho, the days are long.
The work is hard, but we have fun.
We do this work together, friends,
for the people of our province.
First on up and on my right,
with a name, they do unite.
They bang their desks; they toss a stone.
Before we know it, a half hour is gone.
Hey ho, the days are long.
The work is hard, but we have fun.
We do this work together, friends,
for the people of our province.
Next on up our friends with Green,
a hard-working bunch if ever I’ve seen.
Bear dens, lichens, Telus Health,
they just can’t make their minds up.
Hey ho, the days are long.
The work is hard, but we have fun.
We do this work together, friends,
for the people of our province.
And, of course, our single friend
who went to sit as independent.
He claims to lead a party.
He just needs one more friend.
Hey ho, the days are long.
The work is hard, but we have fun.
We do this work together, friends,
for the people of our province.
My orange-hued friends, a team so kind,
when criticized, we don’t mind.
We smile and say with words sincere:
“It’s 16 years that led us here.”
Hey ho, the days are long.
The work is hard, but we have fun.
We do this work together, friends,
for the people of our province.
It’s the honour of my lifetime
to serve with colleagues all so fine.
Though our views may sometimes clash,
that’s how the sausage is made.

KARIS SUPPORT SOCIETY

R. Merrifield: I have a little bit of a different approach this morning.

This winter, at Alli McNeill and former MLA John Weisbeck’s annual fundraiser, they brought together friends and family to raise money and awareness for the Karis Support Society. This is an easy one for me, as I’ve been in awe of the founders and the organization since its beginnings in 2006. This organization has been a beacon of hope for countless women, helping them transform their lives and emerge from the darkness of addiction, homelessness and mental health struggles.

The story of the Karis Support Society began in 2006, when a group of friends recognized the gaps in the services and resources for women struggling with addiction and homelessness. Moved by compassion and a deep sense of responsibility, these friends came together with the shared vision of creating an organization that could provide life-changing assistance to those in need. Over the years, their dedication, hard work and unrelenting commitment have laid the foundation for the incredible organization that the Karis Support Society is today.

Starting in group homes, the society now runs a 37-bed, LEED certified building, where women and their children can come and heal. The society’s dedication to providing safe and stable housing is the cornerstone of its success. By offering a secure environment, the Karis Support Society helps to restore dignity and self worth to those that have been marginalized and forgotten. This foundation of stability is vital in allowing individuals to focus on personal growth, mental health and recovery.

The society’s efforts don’t end with housing. They recognize the importance of comprehensive support, which is why they provide access to essential services like counselling, life skills training and employment assistance. These programs foster a sense of community, belonging and empowerment, enabling individuals to rebuild their lives with renewed purpose and self confidence.

As I spoke with the co–executive directors, Deborah Klassen and Geri Pauls, about the work of Karis, my hope grew. This is a facility that relies on the private sector for funding and support. Yet in the face of adversity, they have demonstrated that it is possible to change lives, restore hope and create a lasting transformation.

[10:20 a.m.]

GEOFF DAWE

D. Routley: It was recently working with community members to generate support for the Crofton Mill in its efforts to transition to a more sustainable future that I got to know Geoff Dawe, local president of PPWC.

Geoff was born in Newfoundland in 1973. His dad tragically drowned on the Ocean Ranger February 15, 1982, 41 years ago this year. His dad was a man with a grade 9 education, who he says was thrown to the wolves and given zero safety or marine training, just handed a manual. Geoff was only eight years old; his brother only ten.

His mother put them, put Geoff, into army cadets to keep, as he says, her two feral boys in order. He was a cadet until he was 18. He knew union life was for him due to the strict discipline and order of how things are to be done, similar to his cadet life. Union activism forces you to be accountable to the people you represent.

Geoff tragically then lost his leg during a driving accident while he was working on offshore oil rigs. It took him over eight months to recover, and the family moved to Ladysmith at that time. His lovely wife, Erinn, rehabbed him by walking on the wonderful Holland Creek Trail in Ladysmith. They have two children: son Darcy in the military, playing Junior A hockey, who recently won silver at the Canadian Armed Forces nationals; daughter Sophie, a nursing student, skated with Skate Canada for years, now volunteers and coaches with the district of North Cowichan at Fuller Lake.

The entire family is dedicated to community. Without the Crofton Mill paying workers a good wage, none of this would be possible. The mill supports families, who in turn support communities. This, I think, I wanted to bring to the attention of members, because Geoff is a picture of why we do these things. It’s not about a mill. It’s about families like Geoff’s.

PAUL KERSHAW AND
COMMUNITY THEATRE IN CRANBROOK

T. Shypitka: Apparently, it appears there’s theatre in the air here in the Legislature. I’d like to thank the member for Parksville-Qualicum for that, which leads me to my two-minute statement.

I’d like to speak to the life and times of Paul Kershaw, or P.K. as he was affectionately known. P.K. was an educator, director, community leader, mentor and kind soul. A drama and stagecraft teacher for over 25 years at Mount Baker senior secondary school in Cranbrook, P.K. gave thousands of students the opportunity to push their own limits and discover themselves on stage and beyond.

His passion and love of theatre naturally led to his involvement in Cranbrook’s Community Theatre and Cranbrook Shakespeare society. He’s one of a handful of people behind the creation of the Key City Theatre, which for more than 30 years staged many of P.K.’s productions. His renowned productions of musical and elaborate sets are legendary and still talked about today. P.K.’s extra­ordinary talent breathed life into Cranbrook’s local theatre community and touched countless lives on stage, behind the scenes and in the audience.

He was named Cranbrook’s Citizen of the Year in 2002 for his contribution to theatre and performing arts. This quote from one of P.K.’s play productions, Man of La Mancha and the song entitled “The Impossible Dream” sums up P.K. beautifully. He was a robust, yet tender man, who dreamed “the impossible dream,” who fought “the unbeatable foe,” who bore “with unbearable sorrow” and who ran “where the brave dare not go.”

Accolades and tributes continue to pour in honouring his positive impact on so many people. P.K. will be missed, but his legacy will live on and off the stage. Paul sadly passed away April 13, 2023, at the age of 89 and is survived by Sara, his wife of 21 years, sons David and Mark, foster daughter Jani and by his siblings, John, Alan and Ruth.

Would this House please give the life and times of this well-loved man a theatrical ovation for this, his last curtain call. Bravo, bravo.

30th ANNUAL CONVERSATION ON
CHILLIWACK’S CHILDREN

K. Paddon: It is a pleasure to rise to do my favourite thing, which is to share with you all how fantastic people are in Chilliwack-Kent.

Specifically today, what I want to share is something that happened last Friday, April 28. Over 30 organizations were represented in Tzeachten Hall in Chilliwack-Kent for the 30th Annual Conversation on Chilliwack’s Children. This conference is put on by the Chilliwack Child and Youth Committee, and the title this year was “Together we can.” The theme was collaboration: its strengths, its stories, its challenges and its opportunities.

[10:25 a.m.]

It was an honour to be in the room with so many skilled, passionate and dedicated advocates and service providers — too many for me to name; I’m not going to make Hansard do it today — and it was also an honour to serve as a keynote speaker.

The day was made up of some incredible comments and some amazing activities. We started off with a welcome from Chief Derek Epp, followed by welcomes from Wanda Smith, director of operations for MCFD, and Kate Healey, executive director for Chilliwack Community Services, who serve as co-chairs for Chilliwack Child and Youth. There was another keynote, by Martha Dow from University of the Fraser Valley, the director of community health and social innovation hub, or CHASI.

The activities included “Every door is the right door,” which was a simulation activity for all of the attendants, and the community collaboration panel.

I want to thank all of the volunteers and the whole team, all of the sponsors who made this possible. It really took so many people. This created an environment of collaboration for everybody in attendance. Indeed, I have no doubt that, truly, “Together we can.” In Chilliwack and Chilliwack-Kent, the conversations and the work done last Friday were just one piece of the passion and dedication that I see every day when I get to work in that community.

Oral Questions

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

E. Sturko: Last night the lack of new schools and increasing numbers of portables came up on notice in Surrey city council, because the community is very concerned with the crisis situation in school district 36. They’re concerned that it will impede the city’s ability to build new homes and to help tackle the housing affordability crisis.

The Premier’s spectacular failure to deliver for Surrey parents has left 10,000 students to languish in portables. In fact, families in Surrey are now getting the opposite of what the NDP promised. There isn’t even room for more portables on school grounds. The NDP promised portable-free schools by 2020, but instead, they’ve given Surrey the absurdity of double-decker portables.

A simple question for the Premier: will the NDP ever keep their promise to eliminate Surrey portables, and if so, when?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I really appreciate the new-found interest from the opposition on education funding and investments in schools. I really appreciate it. It certainly wasn’t the case when they were on this side of the House. It was not the case, but I appreciate that time in opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that time in opposition has changed their views on investments in education and in schools.

Now, the member asked the question, and the member wasn’t here, but many of her colleagues were. She’ll know that when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Finance, he gave zeros for four years, as Minister of Finance, for budgets for capital for schools in Surrey — zero.

The last four years….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Members. Members will come to order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: That’s enough, Members.

Members will come to order, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the other former Minister of Finance saying: “It was only two years under him. It was two years under me.” I appreciate him highlighting that he was part of this challenge as well.

When we formed government, there were 8,000 student seats that were needed in Surrey. In the last four years of their government, there were actually zero schools being built in Surrey.

[10:30 a.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Let’s hear the answer, please. You can respond to that later. Let’s hear the answer first.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I think it’s important to note that we have a Supreme Court decision that came down because of the rights that they stripped away from teachers. That came in, which meant we needed more additional seats above and beyond what we had already projected that we needed — the shortfall.

We also have seen 250,000 people come to British Columbia, and many of those people are coming to Surrey. So we acknowledge that the demand is there and is growing, and we welcome people all across British Columbia.

But 10,000 seats is what we’re delivering as a government — 10,000 seats in the city of Surrey, not in the province, the city of Surrey.

In fact, the member asked questions, and she knows that there is a brand-new elementary school that we’ve announced that’s coming in her community as well.

Significant investments are being made, and we’re going to continue to make more investments.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: Well, unlike the current government, which actually cut funding to learners with disabilities like dyslexia, I can assure you that the budget actually went up overall under the previous government. In fact…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

E. Sturko: …I’d also like to remind the government that actually….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please.

Please continue.

E. Sturko: In fact, the previous government started six new schools and eight additions and opened 6,700 new seats. And while the NDP continue to make excuses for double-decker portables, we actually cut the number of portables by 100 from what this NDP government had left in the 1990s, and we built, of course, new schools like Grandview Heights and the Salish Secondary.

The NDP promises “a total removal of these portables over the course….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

E. Sturko: They don’t like the facts, but this is a direct quote: “…a total removal of these portables over the course of the next four years.”

I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it was a clear promise and timeline. Yet, as with other issues, a huge chasm between the Premier’s rhetoric and their terrible results — results that include $17.5 million that the school district has now been forced to pay for portables that were supposed to be eliminated. And now double-decker portables.

I will ask again because the question really wasn’t answered: has the Premier utterly abandoned his promise to eliminate portables in Surrey and, if not, what are the revised timelines?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I do find it interesting that the opposition puts the newest member up to ask questions, because the rest of them that were here know what their history and their record of this place is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, cut it down, please. Both sides, take a deep breath. Take a deep breath.

I can see everybody. You don’t have to tell me. Okay?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

The Minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appear to have hit a soft spot there.

I will say the member mentioned a couple of things. I think it’s important for the member to know — perhaps she can talk to the colleagues around — that they actually cut adult basic education when they were in government. They actually made cuts to it. I appreciate the member wasn’t here for that, but her colleagues around her can tell her.

Not only are we investing in schools….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We are wasting time here, guys.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Not only are we already investing 10,000 new seats, above the 8,000 also for growth; we know there needs to be more. But it’s not just the structures that we need. We also need to invest in the class­rooms, in our educators.

[10:35 a.m.]

A 24 percent increase in funding per student since we formed government — 24 percent increase. We value the education system. We value the structures. But we also value, very importantly, the teachers, the educators in the classrooms. That’s why we make the investments we have been making. We’re going to continue to invest in Surrey and communities around the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, although the minister likes to avoid the actual question, I will bring it back to the completely failed promise by the NDP to eliminate portables. Now you would expect the Premier and his government to display at least some embarrassment for so brazenly betraying their promises to families.

It’s not just Surrey getting the NDP’s double-decker portables. Here’s what Sooke school board’s chair Ravi Parmar says: “One of the things that we have to do in the absence of new school builds is to add portables. The province is not able to fund at the pace of growth that we’re seeing in the Sooke school district.” Apparently, this NDP candidate hasn’t received the message guide yet, which is strange, as his political staffer works just down the hallway.

So why has the Premier consistently failed to fulfil the NDP promises to families and force communities to resort to desperate measures like double-decker portables?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s interesting that they mentioned the chair of the Sooke school board. He got into politics because of the cuts that these members over here made when they were in government. He was a high school student who just didn’t accept the cuts that were being made.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: He said he found it was unacceptable, and coming out of high school, he decided he was going to run to be on the school board to make a difference in his community.

Brand-new investments in that community. In fact, I had a chance to visit some of the schools that are brand-new, opening up in those communities, seeing the teachers that are being hired.

Now, the member also asked about Surrey and said I didn’t answer the question, so I’ll answer it this way: Salish Secondary, brand-new 1,500 seats in Surrey, open; Woodward Hill Elementary, additional 195 seats….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Panorama Park, additional 200 seats.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to this, please. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Grandview Heights Secondary, additional brand-new 1,500 seats; Maddaugh Elementary, 605 seats; Sullivan Elementary. I’m not even halfway through the list, and that’s what’s already opened.

We have brand-new investments that are happening to open additional seats, and not only investments in the classrooms, but investments in the teachers and the re­sources in the classrooms.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’d like to thank the minister for reading off the list of all of the schools started by the B.C. Liberal government.

Results are what matter. And from Surrey to Langford, this Premier is failing miserably to provide the schools that students desperately need. The crowding and proliferation of portables is forcing schools to stack students in double-decker portables.

Here’s more from Ravi Parmar: “The province doesn’t provide the funding at the pace we need. Happy Valley is jammed-packed. We’ve added as many portables as we can.” Jam-packed with portables isn’t exactly a great campaign slogan from the Premier’s hand-picked candidate.

Why is the Premier failing families in Surrey, the Sooke school district and right across this province, reaching a point where students are being crammed into double-decker portables?

Hon. R. Kahlon: You know what, I appreciate the opposition now not being in favour of portables. They will remember there was a Minister of Education that sat…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …within them, Minister Fassbender, who, on record multiple times, said there’s nothing wrong with portables on several occasions.

[10:40 a.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s your question period.

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you so much, hon. Speaker.

You know, I’ve already started a list of all the schools that we’ve opened. Brand-new….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah. Zero capital funding, and they say they started schools.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, a question was asked. Let’s listen to the answer now.

Members.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, I can share with the members that we have not only the 10,000 that I’ve already committed to, which I’ve already said; we’re also opening Ta’talu Elementary School in the member’s riding that asked the question.

Semiahmoo Trail Elementary is getting an expansion. Kwantlen Park Secondary is getting an expansion. K.B. Woodward Elementary is getting an expansion. Sno­komish Elementary, a brand-new elementary school coming. Tamanawis Secondary is getting an expansion. Guildford Park Secondary, expansion. Fleetwood Park Secondary, expansion. Clayton Heights Secondary is getting an expansion. Forsyth Road Elementary is getting an expansion.

I’m going to catch my breath because there’s more. Site secured for Darts Hill Elementary, because, you know, we have to buy land because the opposition sold the land to private developers.

We’ve also secured a site for a new….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let the minister finish, please.

Please conclude.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We’ve secured sites for Darts Hill Elementary School and also a site secured for Redwood Heights Elementary. We’re making significant investments, not only in our schools, not only in our educators, but we’re also making investments to buy land so that we can have the schools and the infrastructure that we need.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN
IN GOVERNMENT CARE

S. Furstenau: Today in the Tyee, Katie Hyslop has an article summarizing the Representative for Children and Youth’s report on why youth are fleeing the child welfare system in this province. Hundreds of youth and children are missing every single month from the child welfare system in B.C. The reality is that government creates the conditions that lead to so many children becoming lost, going missing or disappearing from care.

After the tragic death of Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais, the minister and her ministry said they were making changes to improve in-care services, calling the changes “transformational.” But we’ve heard this for decades. There have been reports on the failures of the B.C. child welfare system for decades. The reports have been saying the same things for decades. It doesn’t matter what government is there. The protection is of the system and not of the children in that system. We have to have a government that has the courage to stand up for the children and not the system.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How can the government ensure the safety and well-being of children that it is supposed to be caring for when they don’t know where those children are?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. Nothing is more important than the safety and well-being of the children and youth who are in our care. When a child or youth is missing, immediate steps are taken. We want to make sure that they receive the same response as any caring parent. I can tell you that our front-line staff immediately take steps to locate those children and youth and to make sure that they are kept in a safe home as well.

We have been making changes to the in-care system. We know, and the representative has reminded us, that there is a lack of a sense of belonging for children and youth who are in the care system. So we’ve taken steps to make sure that children and youth are connected to their family, to their community and to their culture.

We’re taking steps to change the system to make sure that when children and youth, if they do have to come into care — that their needs are met and that their placement, their home and their carers are there to meet their needs.

[10:45 a.m.]

The other thing we have done is we have passed legislation. We have changed policy. We have taken action in order to try and keep children and youth safely with their families and actually prevent them from coming into the care system at all, because we know that for children and youth, their outcomes are going to be so much better, and children and youth will be able to thrive.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: The minister started with exactly the same statement that was sent to Katie Hyslop in the Tyee: “Nothing is more important than the safety and well-being of children and youth who are in our care.” Yet the data, the evidence, the reality for so many of these children demonstrates that is not the outcome that is happening. Over nine months in 2022, an average of 432 children went missing each month. Four children died.

The report from the Representative for Children and Youth states: “A lack of action by authorities has resulted in the child welfare system continuing to function as a pipeline to child exploitation, sex trafficking and mur­dered and missing Indigenous women and girls.”

It’s time for us to stop with the talking points, to stop with the endless efforts to protect this system. The system is failing. It’s built on a system that was designed to remove Indigenous children from their families. That is the foundation of this system. It continues to work in this way. There is a multilevel failure.

I think it would be really important for every member of this House and for the public to know that for each child in care, this government budgets $135,000 per year per child. If we want to keep children with their families, let’s take a significant portion of that and provide it to the families so that they can meet the needs of their children.

It’s $135,000 per child per year. A lot of that is going to for-profit group homes where nobody can tell you where those children are.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member?

S. Furstenau: My question to the Minister of Children and Families: how can she reconcile the lack of safety in government care for children and youth when safety is used to justify the reason for removing children from their parents in the first place?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. When any child or youth is injured or there’s a death, it’s a terrible tragedy. My heart goes out to anybody connected with those children and youth. When a child or youth from care is missing, every step is taken to locate that child or youth and to make sure that they are in a safe home and that they have the supports and services that they need.

I appreciate the report from the representative. We’re taking the recommendations very seriously, and we will be responding to them very quickly, in collaboration with our staff, with partner agencies, with Indigenous service providers as well.

We have made some progress. Here in chambers just last November, we passed really significant legislation to support Indigenous jurisdiction, because we know that Indigenous children and youth have been overrepresented in the system for far too long.

We’re absolutely committed to changing that and to working with Indigenous nations and communities so that children and youth are able to stay connected to their family, to their community and to their culture. We have a lot more work to do, and I’m absolutely committed to doing it.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND REGULATION OF ILLICIT
DRUG USE IN PUBLIC SPACES

L. Doerkson: I’m glad we’re talking about the safety of children today because every day in British Columbia, parents fear their children will encounter needles in parks and playgrounds due to the Premier’s reckless decision to permit the open use of dangerous drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl.

What the public doesn’t understand is why — why having a beer in a public park is strictly regulated and there are no restrictions or bans on using drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl. Frankly, it’s absurd that we’re even having this debate.

Will the Premier implement a provincial ban on the public use of drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl? Yes or no.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question, which relates to the pilot project of decriminalization of drugs, which, of course, is in the context, in our province, of an unrelenting toxic drug crisis, which is the leading cause of unnatural death in our province.

[10:50 a.m.]

That is why we have taken these steps and answered a call from police, from front-line care providers, from public health, from municipalities to remove the fear and stigma for people who are dealing with problematic substance use and to decriminalize small amounts of illicit drugs so we are better positioned to connect those individuals to care and support.

Municipalities, through the UBCM, have been a part of our core planning table, working with all of our partners on developing the application for exemption. They continue to be very much part of monitoring and overseeing the implementation of this, and they will work very closely, as they have been doing, with their public health officers to assess the impact of this on the ground.

We will continue to work with them to respond to any concerns that may arise, as we have been doing through­out. I’m very grateful for the collaboration of municipalities on this serious public health matter.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

L. Doerkson: Well, the minister suggested removing fear. You’ve created it in our communities, and that answer is not good enough for the parents that are very fearful.

Let’s take Campbell River as an example of what this Premier, through his total absence of leadership, is forcing municipalities to do — municipalities that are simply trying to keep their children safe. Back in January, they passed a bylaw to provide law enforcement with the tools to address open drug use in public areas.

However, confronted with provincial opposition and a lawsuit from the Premier’s Pivot Legal Society, they had to repeal it. They’ve tried again, only to face another setback this week, to have delay again due to the intervention from this minister.

No one should have to worry about their children being exposed to drugs in parks and playgrounds and other public spaces. Why is the Premier not demonstrating any leadership and taking action at the provincial level to ban the public use of dangerous drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl?

Hon. J. Whiteside: With all due respect, the member has some facts quite wrong, with respect to….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Yeah, indeed.

I’ll explain, first of all, by saying this project is one tool that was identified by the select standing committee to which all parties in this House, with the exception….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Members, no interruptions, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Thank you.

Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s a really unprecedented understanding, non-partisan understanding, of the crisis impacting our province with respect to the toxic drug crisis. So I’m grateful that we’re at a place where we’re all working together to try to turn the dial on this unrelenting crisis.

Let me just say about Campbell River…. I’ve been to Campbell River. I’ve toured Campbell River. I have met with service providers. I’ve met with homeless people. I’ve met with doctors, with physicians, with nurses who work day in and day out to provide care for people who are homeless, for people who have addictions, for people who are struggling. That work….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: That is profound work that is unfolding in a community on the Island that has just about the highest mortality rate from this crisis of any other community on Vancouver Island. I know that municipal council is concerned about that. I know that municipal council is working with their medical health officer.

I’m looking forward to meeting in person with representatives from Campbell River to talk about how we work together to engage not just the municipality but the First Nations implicated in this crisis in Campbell River as well, to try to better support the situation on the ground.

That council knows full well that they are working with their medical health officer under the law, under the Public Health Act, which requires municipalities to work with their medical health officers on matters of public health. That’s what they’re doing. We’re working through a process, and we’ll continue to do that work with them.

[10:55 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, I think it’s very important that if the minister wants accuracy, let’s get some actual accuracy going on this.

On page 48 of the committee report, it says very clearly that they, as in all of the committee, agree that there must, not may, be consideration of local needs and circumstances during the implementation of decriminalization. In this regard, members supported continuing consultation and support for municipalities.

The simple fact is that support doesn’t exist. The consultation hasn’t existed to the level municipalities want. We’re getting continued mixed messages from this government. This minister says it’s health related and has to have approval through health boards. The Minister of Municipal Affairs says: “Local governments are elected by their constituents and their community. They know what is best for their communities.”

We can’t get a straight answer out of this government. They keep talking about everything other than open drug use in parks and playgrounds and things like crack and fentanyl and heroin. What the public wants, and mayors in Kelowna, New Westminster and other mayors and councils around this province, is a simple provincewide ban around parks and playgrounds, and this government is refusing to allow that to happen.

Parents simply want their eight-year-old to go play on a slide without needing the eight-year-old to be the drug intervention prevention officer for someone OD’ing with open drug use around that slide. That’s what they want. They understand that Crab Park will not be enforced, that the tent encampment there will still see drug use in that park. But they want the tool to be able to try to enforce and move people along, help them get treatment when they are causing a problem around slides, around swings, around water parks.

When will this soft-on-crime Premier listen to the communities instead of the Pivot Legal Society and actually bring in a provincewide ban on the open use of fentanyl, crack, heroin and other hard drugs around our kids’ playgrounds and beaches?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I would suggest, though, that the confusion, perhaps, is on that side of the House. The confusion is not with municipalities.

Municipalities understand full well what their obligations are under the Public Health Act, and they routinely engage with health authorities and public health officials with respect to public health matters. This is no different, and there is nothing in decriminalization that restricts the tools that municipalities have. In fact, we are having ongoing discussions with municipalities in that regard.

You know, the member raised the issue with respect to the to the Health Canada requirements for the decriminalization pilot project. I will just note that Health Canada approved the exemption based on the submission that was made and approved this pilot project, having reviewed all of the actions that have been taken under all of the points, all of the requirements that they placed.

In regard to alternative measures and being able to direct individuals to health and social services supports, we have those supports in place. We have staff in place in order to direct and support individuals to access…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …health care supports. We have on­going consultation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let the minister conclude, please.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …with all of our partners, including municipalities. We have an unprecedented $1 billion investment in this budget, which follows on unprecedented investments in mental health and substance use in previous budgets, to build out our system of treatment and care. I could go on and on and on and would be happy to review that list with members.

More importantly, I think this is a time when we have an unrelenting crisis that impacts our communities in so many different and complicated ways. We need to work together. We really need to work together to change the dial on this issue.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report Fraud Risk and Financial Statements: B.C. Public Sector, Part 2.

[11:00 a.m.]

Reports from Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

P. Milobar: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the 42nd parliament, titled Summary of Activities 2022-23.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

P. Milobar: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

P. Milobar: In moving the adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief comments.

In reviewing the Auditor General’s report…. The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts engages in im­portant discussions about how government is managing its services, programs, responsibilities and resources and areas where this work can be improved. This report summarizes the committee’s work from April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, including its examination of 11 performance audits and information reports on a variety of topics, including the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, fraud risk management, cybersecurity, transportation and mines.

The committee also reviewed the Auditor General’s report on the financial audit work for the fiscal year 2021-2022 and approved the financial statement audit coverage plan for auditing the provincial summary financial statements over the next three years. To further promote this ongoing accountability and the improvement of public sector administration, the committee also followed up with 15 audited organizations to seek additional information regarding their progress in implementing the audit report recommendations.

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank the Auditor General, Michael Pickup, and his staff for the important work that they do, as well as the comptroller general, Carl Fischer, and the many more senior public servants who appeared before the committee.

I would also like to thank the Clerk’s office for all of their support throughout and Hansard as well, of course.

I’d also like to express my appreciation to all the committee members, including the Deputy Chair, the member for North Coast, for their hard work and collaboration.

J. Rice: I, too, would like to acknowledge all committee members, including the Chair, the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson, for their collaborative spirit and contributions to this committee.

As a new member of the Public Accounts Committee, having joined at the beginning of this year, I’m impressed by the work we have accomplished. During my short time as Deputy Chair, the committee considered reports related to mental health and substance use services for Indigenous people in B.C. correctional centres, the monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination coverage as well as the Auditor General’s financial audit work. I look forward to continuing the work of the committee in promoting public sector oversight and accountability in the province in this next fiscal year.

I would like to echo the Chair’s appreciation for the Office of the Auditor General, the office of the comptroller general and the numerous senior public servants who took time to appear before the committee. I would also like to extend a thank-you to the staff from the Parliamentary Committees Office, Hansard and those who helped with the committee work.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

J. Rice: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Rice: I would just like to welcome, who I believe…. My glasses aren’t strong enough. Michael Jensen is a well-known union activist in my community. He is here from the Construction Maintenance And Allied Workers union.

Please make him feel welcome if he hasn’t left yet.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I’ll call continued debate on the Committee of Supply, Ministry of Finance.

In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee room C will be closed, with no further business for the day.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $338,869,000 (continued).

D. Clovechok: First of all, I want to thank my colleague for this time that we’ll have to talk about a couple of really important issues. We don’t have a lot of time. It does astound me a little bit that we talk so much about forestry and mining and tourism and all these other resources, yet the most important resource that we have, which is water, doesn’t get a whole lot of time.

I’m hoping that you can work with your House Leader, through the Chair, of course, and get that changed for the next estimates.

The work that’s being done with the modernization of the treaty with the Americans is incredibly important. I want to thank Kathy and Les— I can say your names — for the incredible work that you do. It’s certainly appreciated, and it’s so important.

I also want to just take a very quick minute to recognize the CRT Local Governments Committee as well: Cindy Pearce, who is the executive director; Linda Worley, who is the chair; Stan Doehle, who is the vice-chair; Ron Oszust; David Brooks-Hill; Aimee Watson; Aidan McLaren-Caux; Jane Walter; Frank Marino; and Don MacLean. I think Keith Page has left, but I thank him for his efforts anyways.

After 16 rounds of negotiations with the United States and a bout COVID, which kind of interrupted things and derailed things a bit, we are where we are now.

[11:10 a.m.]

I guess the first question that I would have to the minister is: when is there a potential date that might be struck for an agreement-in-principle?

Hon. K. Conroy: I, too, would like to introduce staff with me: of course, Heather Wood, my deputy minister; Les MacLaren, the assistant deputy minister from EMLI; and Kathy Eichenberger, who, I would say, is our lead at the Columbia River Treaty, our guru at the table. She keeps trying to retire, but we won’t let her.

The member has asked about the actual date. There is no actual date. I know the Americans would like to wrap things up by this summer, but from our perspective, we want to make sure we have an approval-in-principle that we can take back to the basin residents and say: “This is the direction we’re moving in. This is going to be the treaty agreement that we’re going to live with for many years.” So we want to make sure we get it right.

We don’t have an actual date, but we’re very respectful of the fact the Americans would like to have a treaty approval-in-principle by the summer. But from our perspective, as I said, we want to make sure that we get this right.

I also, too, want to acknowledge the local governments committee, as the member did. They have been really great in having that collaboration with them. We’ve been working with them since 2012 — made up of different local government representatives from across the basin. They have been very instrumental in providing input, feedback, as we go through this whole process, over the entire time.

Again, a shout-out to them, because they’ve done a lot of great work.

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m glad that patience is a virtue when it comes to the Canadian side. The Americans want it done quickly, and it’s going to be an interesting watch to see how we navigate that.

One of the interesting things, I think, that shows some movement is that for the first time — I believe it’s the first time — the Canadian Prime Minister and President Biden actually released a joint statement on the Columbia River Treaty not too long ago, which is interesting. I think it shows support.

I’m also wondering…. The play in Canada is a little different. Will this need to go and have a Senate approval, once it’s done, in Canada? But with the different entities in the United States, the different states, their process is different than our provinces, and the President has a veto of anything that goes on in the United States.

Do you see that as a problem, moving forward, in terms of ratifying and getting this thing done as quickly as you can? Is there a political barrier associated with this?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve talked to the negotiating team. I do not sit at the negotiating team; no politicians at the negotiating team. We think that’s a good thing.

They’ve talked to the U.S. about their process. They say that they don’t know if they will need advice and consent from the Senate prior to the President agreeing and signing the treaty.

It is important to note, though, that it has been a bipartisan issue federally with both the Republicans and the Democrats. Unlike in Canada, where B.C. has a major role in the negotiations, a significant role in the negotiations, that is not the same in the United States. The individual states are not part of that process like we are in British Columbia.

D. Clovechok: That’s encouraging.

I would agree, with the American process, that it is much different. Thank goodness British Columbia and Canada are together in this. It’s incredibly important.

It would be safe to assume, then, that the states and their view of what that treaty will end up looking like — I’m assuming through the consultations that they’ve done, like we have here in Canada — are in lockstep with one another in terms of what that’s going to look like in the processes.

So to get a sense of where they are at, are they together on this, or is there debate amongst themselves, or is it going to be a collaborative thing?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re not privy to the internal discussions between the states and the federal government. It’s very much a federal government process. We know that the federal departments that are part of the treaty discussions are very united and providing input, but the states are not part of that process.

D. Clovechok: I understand that, and I will move off of this so we don’t have to play American politics here.

But my biggest concern, and the concern I hear from constituents around the river treaty, is that there will be a presidential election coming soon. And of course, they’re worried about those negotiations from one President to another President and what will happen with that. So that’s a big question mark, and we don’t know. We don’t know what we don’t know, right?

[11:20 a.m.]

Anyway, I just want to say, for the record, that I truly believe that this treaty is one of the most important treaties Canada has signed in a long, long time. It’s so important in the sense that, with climate change and everything else, our water is one of our…. It is, in my opinion, the most precious resource that we have, and we have to make sure that we’re taking care of that resource.

I’m looking at the things that are happening throughout British Columbia right now, whether it be Living Lakes Canada, the Lake Windermere Ambassadors, as a great example, or the Columbia stewardship folks that are doing studies on waters and aquifers, and so on and so forth.

I’m wondering what kind of science has been applied to the study of the Columbia River system and how that process has occurred and how that knowledge and that data has been incorporated into the negotiations.

Hon. K. Conroy: All of the existing science from the groups that the member mentions are contributing to the development of the treaty and contributing to the development of the operations that address ecosystems.

In addition to the science at the table, the First Nations who are at the table are leading further research in collaboration with Canada and B.C. and NGOs and the environmental organizations on further developing the knowledge of ecosystems, sharing their traditional knowledge and bringing that information to the table as well.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer. I’m just wondering if there’s any forecasting knowledge in terms of timing, where…. The next 50 years — hopefully we’ll still be here. But 150 years, 200 years from now…. I’m wondering if that kind of forecasting in terms of the modelling that’s being done…. I’m sure it is.

[11:25 a.m.]

I think it’s important for residents to understand that this treaty is being based upon future diagnostics, that we’re not in the present. We’re in the future, and we’re thinking about our children’s children’s children — those kids up there, if they’re from the Kootenays or wherever. I think that’s an important metric to look at, and I’m not sure if you have that or not, but I’d be interested to hear about that.

Hon. K. Conroy: B.C. Hydro is working with climate forecasters from universities in both B.C. and the Pacific Northwest region — all part of the basin. The modelling shows that we expect more precipitation as time goes on. Less snow, unfortunately, but more rain, more precipitation. We’re also seeing more extreme weather events. The modelling is looking at those to determine how that’s going to affect things in our areas, whether it’s heat domes, atmospheric rivers, things like that.

Climate change predictions are being integrated within the model, part of the negotiations at the table. Also, of course, within the treaty, adaptive management is going to be an important consideration going forward, given that climate change, both for mitigation and adaption but also as a result of technological advancements and moving forward….

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. It’s encouraging to know that that kind of modelling is being done inside the treaty process, because we don’t know what it’s going to look like 100, 200 years from now, and it’s really important for Canada that that happened. I’m encouraged to hear that.

The next series of questions that I have are based upon the community consultation process. I think it was robust, and I truly believe that the negotiation team has included inside of their negotiations — our side, anyway — those things that they heard from the community, and that is not only appreciated but much needed.

When you come to a potential agreement-in-principle, I’d like to understand a little bit about it, and so would the residents of the basin. Once an agreement-in-principle has been reached, will there be other community consultations, or will it be a community presentation? A consultation and a presentation are two different things. Knowing you can’t start from scratch, will the communities be given an opportunity to hear their voices again through a consultation process?

Again, I’m wanting to thank the minister for noting — and we’ll get this on the record, so it happens — that there wasn’t a community consultation process at the headwaters of the Columbia River and the Columbia Lake. When that was brought to the minister’s attention, one happened right away. We’re looking forward to having the next one as well.

[11:30 a.m.]

So just wanting to know: what happens after the agreement-in-principle is done? Will there be more consultation? How is that going to be factored into further negotiations with the Americans?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to acknowledge the amount of consultation on the basin that has already been done. It has been ongoing since 2012, I think, if maybe not even before that. There has been a concerted effort to make sure that the constituents are very much involved in the process this time, unlike how it was last time. It was a bit of: “This is being done to you, not with you.” The work that has been done has been significant.

A lot of that work that was done has been brought to the table, and it has been used by the people that are at the negotiating table. It was brought there to determine the direction we’re moving in. There has been a lot of really good collaboration.

The approval-in-principle itself will be explained to basin residents in the same way. It’ll be done through meetings with local governments, through the local governments committee, of course, and a series of community meetings, some of them in person and some virtual. The virtual sessions have been working, especially. The member is well aware of the significance of geographical areas in our region, so he understands that.

These meetings will also include the rationale for how negotiations resulted in the approval-in-principle components. The B.C. Columbia River treaty team will be seeking feedback on to what extent it reflects the basin’s interests that we heard over the last decade and whether, by and large, the overall direction is what communities and residents were hoping to see.

After that, there will still be some negotiations on how to translate the agreement-in-principle into treaty wording. Refinements from what we heard can be addressed at that stage. There won’t be drastic changes, because there has been so much input from the people in the basin to date that I don’t think there are going to be any surprises when we finally get to the approval-in-principle.

D. Clovechok: That’s good to hear. Just a point of clarification, then.

If there happened to be, hypothetically, a specific issue that were consistently brought up throughout by the residents of the basin and that seemed to say, “Yeah, this doesn’t really work,” is there still flexibility, within that negotiation process, to actually have that new idea put in, so that it’s not just a presentation of what the collaborative knowledge has already been? If there’s a new idea that comes forward, is there a possibility to insert that back into the treaty process?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, the member has posed a hypothetical question. From my perspective, I think it’s highly unlikely that there would be anything brand-new, but if there were, it would have to be assessed as to whether it could be accommodated into the language of the treaty.

What’s going to be shared is the approval-in-principle. It would have to be assessed to see whether it’s something that could be included into the treaty or not.

[11:35 a.m.]

D. Clovechok: As President Reagan said: “Never say never.”

I guess from that answer…. I totally get it, because we don’t know what that consultation process is going to be. Garnering from what I just heard, then, once there has been consultation and the presentation of the agreement-in-principle, it’s pretty much a fait accompli, really. You think that there might be, but it would have to go through a process, is what I think I heard you say.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I think there has been so much discussion in the basin prior to all the work that has been done. From my perspective, I think it would be highly unlikely that there would be something brand-new that would have to be looked at.

I mean, there is some ability to have some small modifications to the agreement-in-principle. At the same time, I doubt that’s going to happen much, just because there’s been so much input and so much consultation gathered from people throughout the basin.

D. Clovechok: I think that’s a very fair answer. What I hear from residents is that we just want to make sure we get this thing right. You know, we’ve got one kick at the can on this, and we just want to get it right.

I’ll move away from the treaty and get onto something we also, both the minister and I, are so grateful for. That is, of course, the Columbia Basin Trust.

[11:40 a.m.]

Back on October 17, 2016, an MOU was made between the province, driven…. It took almost, I think, four years to build. At that time, the minister was the critic, I believe, and Minister Bennett was the minister in charge of this file. It took him almost four years to get this MOU put together, with a lot of help from other people.

It’s a very unique nature of the trust within the public sector, and inside of this MOU…. It’s to be reviewed every three years, and the last review happened in 2019. I did ask the minister in last year’s estimates if we were going to look at the renewal of the MOU, and she said yes, and I believe her.

I’m just wondering if the minister can explain why we’re still waiting for the review of this MOU, knowing full well that we faced COVID.

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is quite right. It’s a very unique relationship between the province and the trust. The trust’s dual accountability to the province and residents of the basin was set out in the original 2016 memorandum of understanding, the MOU, as the member refers to.

When that document was signed, a commitment was made between the parties to review the document every three years and ensure it would still continue to meet the parties’ objectives. And although an overall review did not occur in 2019, we definitely were having discussions about the MOU.

The member is right. Unfortunately, COVID postponed a number of things, and it postponed that for a number of years. We’ve had a number…. There’s been a staff-level review done, including input from the trust and from interested government ministries. That’s underway, and I expect it will be complete fairly soon.

I’m very supportive of this initiative and look forward to considering the results of the review and any recommendations arising from the staff once they’ve completed the work. In the meantime, the original MOU is still in place, and the government and trust continue to maintain a strong and collaborative relationship with each other.

I have actually written to the Chair and made a commitment that we will look at having been able to sign a completed MOU by this summer, because we recognize how important it is to everybody that the trust…. Also, it’s an important document between both government and the trust as we carry on our relationship.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. It’s encouraging. I do think that this is really a unique agreement between government. I know that Kootenay Bill, when he was doing this, ran into some resistance from his own government bureaucrats, and that’s why he fought so hard to get this thing over the line.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’m just going to read into the record, in terms of principle: “Recognition that the CBTE was created as a unique organization, with a distinctly regional purpose, with Columbia Basin residents directing the CBT’s priorities and activities, and with CBT accountable to basin residents.” I think that remains, as I’ve just heard, part of that.

I guess the question that I have, just to make me feel a little bit better, is: is there any resistance within government right now, that you know of, that would change the MOU in any significant way?

Hon. K. Conroy: No.

D. Clovechok: Good news. Thank you. That’s the answer I wanted.

In terms of power assets, my question would be…. A very, very simple question. Would there currently be a desire within the provincial government at all that would indicate any advocacy to a potential sale of minority interests in the hydroelectric projects jointly owned by the trust and Columbia Power Corp.?

Hon. K. Conroy: No.

D. Clovechok: Those are easy answers.

To the minister, would you still consider it unlikely that the provincial government would sell the remaining asset to the CBT?

R. Leonard: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: It is my distinct pleasure to welcome to this House the class of grade 6s and 7s from Ms. Douglas’s and Mr. Mann’s classes from Queneesh School, which is a stone’s throw from my house. It’s a beautiful school set in amongst the trees close to a hospital and a lot of other things that keep a neighbourhood really functioning well.

I see that they’re playing a little bit of musical chairs as they get settled into their proper seats, as we all must do down here on the floor.

I would ask the House to please welcome the class from Queneesh.

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s interesting that the member brings this up. This was looked at a number of years ago. There was even an agreement-in-principle that it potentially could happen, but it was agreed that it would be difficult. It would be extremely expensive for the trust to purchase the Columbia Power Corp. because of its incredible assets.

I think it’s a good time to acknowledge those assets and how much they do for the citizens of the basin, with the initiatives of the trust, but also to our own government coffers — the significant amount of money they return back to government as well.

I think it was an excellent investment by the government of the day when they invested in the original trust, because I think it’s come back a number of times. Over and over again, they have recouped those funds.

D. Clovechok: I can’t agree with you more than that. I also just want to recognize Johnny Strilaeff and all of his staff at CBT. They do such a wonderful job. I know that we are the envy, in the Columbia Basin, of so many other places in the province. I recall, off the top of my head, that the CBT got $76 million last year to invest into the basin. Without CBT, I would dare think we are not anywhere near where we possibly could be.

I beg the minister’s forgiveness really quickly — just to jump back, because I forgot one thing about the river treaty. I want to know where we are in terms of the Libby dam. I know….

[11:50 a.m.]

Before we have a quick answer on that, I’m also going to ask the minister if we could have a potential briefing with myself and my colleague from Kootenay East at some other point around Libby dam and B.C. Hydro. I’d ask that question. Just a quick update as to where we are with Libby, because it’s inside the treaty, but it was not built within the treaty.

Hon. K. Conroy: I just wanted to, further to the member’s comments about the amount of funds that the CBT puts back into the basin, remind people that it is retribution from the extensive damage that was caused to the basin because of the Columbia River treaty.

We have to remind people of that, because I think peo­ple don’t remember that. So we have to remind them of why the original trust was created, etc.

I thank the member for raising this. I was thinking: “Why didn’t he talk about Libby? I thought for sure it was going to come up.” Definitely, the province has heard loud and clear how residents in the Koocanusa area are impacted by Libby coordination.

The residents have been extremely passionate about making improvements to reservoir conditions for recreation, for fisheries, for ecosystems and also for agriculture. They are being heard, and a much improved collaborative engagement approach is being discussed at the negotiating table — very lengthy discussions. I can’t tell the exact details at this point.

What I am told…. I’m cautiously optimistic that we’ll see change for the better with Libby and all the issues that members from the area have raised.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that.

One other around the treaty — I spaced out — is around the First Nations component of the negotiation team. Three Canadian First Nations are observer-plus, which I think is just outstanding. I just want to know from the minister if those three nations had the same kind of collaborative discussions within their nations like you did with non–First Nations outside of their communities, with our communities.

Was that a collaborative conversation? Were their ideas and input from their nations put into their representatives so that those could be shared as well?

Hon. K. Conroy: The Indigenous nations that the member has referred to are an integral partner in developing the negotiating positions and in contributing to Canada’s proposals to the U.S., along with Canada and B.C. It’s the Ktunaxa, the Okanagan Syilx and the Secwépemc. They regularly engage with their leadership and their communities throughout this process.

Each nation has their own process on how they’ll consult with their nations and their leaders and their members. In addition to that, B.C. and Canadian representatives have also been consulting with the Indigenous leadership and communities throughout the process. The nations, in fact, yesterday had an all-day meeting with the local governments committee, meeting with them, talking about issues. Ecosystems, of course, are a big issue. They met all day.

[11:55 a.m.]

They’ve also been part of the regular consultations that have happened throughout the basin. The nations themselves, the representatives, have been involved with those discussions as well.

D. Clovechok: I’m being told I’m out of time. I would just ask the minister to submit some more questions.

I just want to say to the minister, thank you very much — and Kathy and Les and everyone else — for what you do. This is an incredibly important file. It means so much to the people of the basin.

With that — I’m getting a dirty look — thank you very much.

Hon. K. Conroy: I would just like to say how much I appreciated this opportunity. I wish we could have more time to discuss this, because it is critically important.

It’s not only important to the basin. I’d like to remind people that it’s important to our province. As I say, it directly contributes significant dollars to our coffers, which benefits everybody in the province. I’d like to remind people of that. It is a great asset to have. The treaty will be a great asset, once we get it finalized, as well.

Any other questions the member would like to submit, we’ll be only too happy to answer.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); A.  Walker in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,013,019,000 (continued).

M. Morris: Before we get started on the next thing we will be looking at, the safer communities action plan — I want to go into some detail on that — I just want to make a statement, or an observation, more than anything, on the Surrey discussion that we had before we adjourned yesterday.

After listening to the minister’s response, I see a bit of an imbalance with respect to the minister’s terms and conditions between the Surrey police service and the RCMP. The minister has imposed seven conditions on the RCMP to hire 161 officers over a short period of time and, in my estimation, doesn’t give much consideration to the 300 Surrey police service officers who are currently serving and that can simply patch over to the RCMP — would be available to do this.

This is compared to the three conditions for the Surrey police service to hire 500 officers, which, in my experience and estimation, will have the similar impacts on police resources throughout the province, but with no imposed time constraints. That’s just my observation. I go from my experience: over 32 years as a police officer — as a street cop, as a supervisor, as a detachment commander and a senior manager — and add to that my experience as a Solicitor General.

[11:10 a.m.]

The only difference in the delivery of police service in any community that I’ve been at is the level of resourcing. It doesn’t matter what shoulder patch an officer wears. The police are all governed by the same laws. The same code of conduct, the same basic standards are applicable to any police officer across the province of British Columbia.

I see the Surrey police service members that we have, that want to remain in Surrey and serve and protect the citizens of Surrey, can still remain in Surrey and serve and protect the citizens of Surrey as members of the RCMP.

This has become a very emotional subject for many. I think sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the police officers — it doesn’t matter what shoulder patch they wear — are all the same. It becomes a political issue more than it does an actual service delivery issue. So I hope we can get beyond that, and I hope that things progress in Surrey in an expedited fashion to try and arrive at whatever that end solution might look like at the end of the day.

Going from there to the safer communities action plan, the $230 million over three years…. As the minister is no doubt aware, the workload disparity between RCMP detachments, provincial jurisdictions versus municipal and municipal independent police agencies is significant.

The average for independent municipal departments is 33 criminal cases per officer — these are 2021 stats — at a cost of $448 per capita.

RCMP, large municipal, over 15,000 populations, is 63 cases per police officer at a cost of $289 per capita.

RCMP, municipal, 5,000 to 15,000, is 65 cases per officer at a cost of $220 per capita.

Provincial policing in jurisdictions coming in at an aver­age of 62 criminal cases per officer, but caseload ranges from a low of 16 criminal cases per officer to a high of 383.

I’m going to give a couple of examples here, because this is where my concern…. I’m sure the minister has the same concerns. Based on my experience over time….

I look at a detachment like Takla, north of Fort St. James — very remote, takes hours to drive into it: 30 serious criminal offences. The crime rate is 2,000. B.C.’s crime rate is around 100, I believe. The authorized strength is two. The serious crime caseload per member is 15, and the total Criminal Code caseload is 204 for a population of 204.

Then we go to West Vancouver, with 327 serious files, a crime rate of 41, authorized strength of 79, serious crime caseload of four, and a Criminal Code caseload of 25 for a population of near 50,000.

I guess I’m saying this…. It’ll go into the minister’s response, I’m sure. I’ve worked in Takla. I’ve worked where I’m the only one investigating a homicide, where there are other armed people around. You become a very tactful and resourceful police officer in those kinds of situations.

We also have Tsay Keh, which is even further north and even more remote, with an even higher crime and Criminal Code caseload, and Kwadacha north of there. So we have Tsay Keh, which is the north end of Williston Lake, and then we have Kwadacha, which is probably about a three-hour drive north of there on a good day. High in­volvements of alcohol, domestic violence, persons’ crimes. Their nearest resource is hours away if the road’s open or days away or hours away by aircraft if the weather is applicable to that.

These are the areas that I’m concerned about, and I’ll have a bunch of questions. I’m just wondering if the minister can give an outline of where the increases to each of our rural detachments might go from the uniform perspective.

You’re speaking about providing RCMP resources to rural British Columbia. Can you give us an itemized list of where these resources are going to go and your projected timeline for these?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member for the question because, over the number of years that we have been on both sides and have talked about this issue, I know how important this issue is to him. And I think you’ve come to realize this issue is important to me. It’s why I was really pleased we were able to finally get that investment on those provincial positions, because I think they are crucial.

As you well know, the decisions, the operational deci­sions, are internal management of the RCMP. That being said, the province will be superintending those, because I have absolutely made it clear that we have got to ensure that those places that you’re talking about — the Iskuts, the Taklas, the small communities under 5,000 — have got to be able to expect, and have a right to expect, that they have policing services that they can count on.

What I can tell you is that the plan for this year is for 52 of those resources to come into British Columbia and to be deployed and looking at 125 next year.

This issue has come up at UBCM. It comes up at the First Nations leadership gathering. It’s time and time again. I’m determined to see that this gets addressed. That’s why that investment was as big as it was. And I look forward to it taking place.

The Chair: Reminding members it’s through the chair.

M. Morris: Thank you, Chair.

That’s going to lead into a series of other questions. But before I get into some of the details around that and some of the implications to that, I’m just wondering. Has there been any work done to put some metrics around what a reasonable Criminal Code caseload per member would be?

What workload can a member sustain without compromising a criminal investigation? They’ve become so technical in today’s world that if we make a mistake right at the front end of that investigation, it’s jeopardized the end of it, and justice is not served as a result of that. So I’m just curious to see what kind of work has been done to address that and put those metrics into the operations of policing.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member the RCMP are taking all of those things into account — caseload, remoteness, crime rate — in terms of putting together how and where to deploy the additional resources.

M. Morris: With that goes the…. This is something that I used to wrestle with as a senior manager in the forest. If we are to address the caseload per member in places like Kwadacha or Takla or a number of the other very remote communities that we have, it may mean doubling or tripling the establishment at those respective places. With that comes additional quarters. With that comes the infrastructure for bigger detachments or additions and whatnot.

I have had many First Nations Chiefs come in to meet me in my Prince George office just because they happen to be in Prince George on business, and they’ll talk about the level of safety in their remote communities.

A lot of the band offices are relocated to Prince George, for an example, and there needs to be a safe environment for the other support workers to come in, so the teachers, the social services workers, the health care workers and whatnot. A lot of them don’t feel safe, so they don’t go into those communities.

Will that be a consideration by the ministry to ensure that there’s a safe environment for all the support workers that need to go in and provide the services to make those communities healthy and safe?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member, because that’s a really good point, and it is something that we recognize as well. That’s part of the work that, when we’re talking about Megan, the new ADM, is that holistic approach and making sure that everything is working together. It’s not just a case of putting more police officers in. You’re right. It is about the safe space. That involves cross-ministries.

It also involves the local community as well. I’ll just give a quick example. At the First Nations Leadership group, I met with the Tahltan Band up near the Yukon border.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, not Dease Lake, further up and over. No, it wasn’t Iskut. It was the other side. It was the other way from Iskut. Lower Post.

They said during COVID, they had actually set up a checkpoint staffed by Elders who were there during the day, because there’s only one road in and only one road out. Cars would stop, and “Hey, where are you going? Have you had a little too much to drink?” and just sort of like community. What they noticed was the calls — because it is serviced out of H division — dropped by about 50 percent.

[11:25 a.m.]

They came and said: “Look, we’d like to continue this. Can you help us with a bit of funding?” It was: “Sure.” That, to me, is that kind of example of what we do in government in terms of the ministry, my ministry, the broader plan, in terms of ensuring everybody’s working together and having those safe spaces, and also the local community being part and parcel of the solutions that they know can work for their particular situation.

The member raises a good point, and it’s very much one that we are focused on in the safer communities plan.

M. Morris: I think it’s a good point. In Lower Post, working in collaboration with M division, which is the Yukon…. I’m just wondering whether the minister has met with any First Nations Chiefs from some of these remote communities. I’ve asked them to contact you and or your office and meet with you, over the last year or two, and I’m just wondering how many have actually met with you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I was up in Prince George earlier this year. I think we contacted your office. I did meet with, I think, about 15 representatives of different na­tions up there. I know there were a number of Chiefs there, and I’m more than happy to get you a list, if you like, of those who were in attendance. We had a really good discussion, and….

Let’s put this way: I think it would be an eye-opening discussion for a number of people. It was very, very good.

M. Morris: I’ll probably get into a few more questions on First Nations policing later on this afternoon here.

Can the minister tell us how many specialized sections the RCMP is looking at, in increasing the establishment — or rebuilding, I suppose — over the years? I go back to the days when I was a district officer up in the North, and there was starting to be a bleed of specialized units going into the Lower Mainland.

The federal serious and organized crime group morphed into CFSEU. We lost commercial crime. We lost our federal resources up there. We lost a number of the specialized units that were scattered throughout the north district, to augment that.

We now have the organized crime and the gang issues, not just in the Lower Mainland; they are provincewide. Prince George has been inundated with homicides and issues related to the gang violence over the years. If we can get a list of the specialized units that are being looked at and being re-established throughout the province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The focus is very much on the North and on the Southeast, major crimes and the highway patrol, so obviously, the criminal activity but within major crimes, the integrated child exploitation as well. That’s very much the focus of what we’re wanting to see happen.

M. Morris: One of the other issues that has been brought to my attention…. At one time, there was a dedicated criminal intelligence unit, based out of the North, in Prince George. The northern district, my old district, covered 75 percent of the province. It requires a lot of travel time, a lot of dedication and work, to gain intelligence from all of the communities, particularly in resource sector communities. We’ve had the pipeline-building; we’ve got LNG Canada being built.

[11:30 a.m.]

Organized crime takes advantage of opportunities like that, but we’ve seen a disappearance of those units and a complete degradation of intelligence-gathering capability in the North because those units were displaced down south. I’m hoping that that will be a priority for the police, if the minister can make sure that this is an issue for him.

We do know that travel for CFSEU was cut back a couple of years ago, which really hindered their ability to do that intelligence-gathering aspect of it.

The other question…. When I looked at the stats for the northern part — for the whole province — for some reason, there seems to be a higher incidence of domestic violence and persons crimes in the northern region, particularly in our smaller communities. I’m wondering: will there be any resources dedicated to domestic violence units throughout northern British Columbia or through­out the province where we don’t have the capability right now?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the intelligence gathering, absolutely. That’s very much a focus within the major crimes unit. I mean, that, to me, as you and I have talked about in the past, is a critical component of policing.

On the domestic violence units, there are domestic vio­lence units in the province. I know that there is one in Prince George. One of the things, obviously, we want to do is work with the RCMP in terms of: “Okay, where are there gaps, or are there opportunities to place additional resources?” Whether there’s a unit or not, that crime is treated as a major crime by police to begin with.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie for the opportunity to ask a few questions on the gender equity side.

The first question — I don’t expect an answer. I would ask that we find an answer, and then just to report back in writing would be great. That is, when and how many meetings has the minister had with the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity on the gender-based vio­lence action plan?

That one’s read, and I’ll…. If the minister could confirm that that could be given.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will be happy to get you the information, and I can tell you that I have met with her and I have had discussions with her on that very plan.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. I look forward to the receipt. Thank you so much for the answer.

This is the next question. Could the minister confirm that the B.C. Coroners Service has revised their investiga­tive protocols to better capture essential IPV data, including searching the protection order registry in all IPV deaths, as per the coroner’s own report recommendation from the November 2016 coroners death panel review of intimate partner violence?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify, are you wanting an answer on that right now, or do you want me to get back to you?

R. Merrifield: That would be right now.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay. In which case, we do have the coroner here. So if I get the coroner up, then we can answer the question for you.

R. Merrifield: I’ll wait for the coroner on that particular answer, and then I’ll go to the next one, just in the interest of time.

On the crime victim assistance program, I understand that it transitioned to a new case management system in 2022. Was every file that was awaiting review accounted for and input into the new case management system? Or were files lost?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will get you the information on that question. I’ll get the answer for you.

R. Merrifield: Sorry, the answer for whether or not they were lost, or for how many were lost?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m not aware if any were lost or the transfer…. But the appropriate department of my ministry…. What I’ll do is I’ll make sure that I get the answers for your question to you.

I can also say that the coroner is now here. So you can ask me the question again.

R. Merrifield: I’ll give her a moment to be seated and settle in. I’ll go on to my next question, because it is related to the previous.

The other information that I’d like to know from this case management system that was transitioned is: how many victims had to resubmit their applications for assistance? How many were lost in that transference? I would assume the minister has to get that, but he can confirm it for me. What are the current waiting times for victim assistance applications to receive a decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: To answer your question on the files, I can tell you that no files were lost. There are still some historical documents that remain at Iron Mountain, but all the files were successfully transferred to the new system.

R. Merrifield: I actually have an email that talks about some of the…. This is from the actual caseworker. It says: “We were transitioning to a new case management system earlier this year and are still working out some of the kinks.” This is actually from a lost file and asking for a re-application.

So perhaps the minister could go back and take a look to see if there were other files that were lost in the process of transference to that and resubmit a different number on that.

I also will ask if the minister could outline how much the budget for this particular crime victim assistance program was in each of the last three years, and whether or not it’s fully staffed at this point.

Then we’ll move back to the coroner’s question.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: For the specific program — and then there are the overall programs that deal with victims — it’s $18.2 million for the CVAP. Overall, it’s $77.2 million, which includes the additional $10 million this year for sexual assault centres.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the information. The last portion of that question was just if it’s fully staffed. In the interest of time, I just want to make sure we can get through all the questions, but that was the last part.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is fully staffed, in that there are no vacancies being held or positions not being filled.

[11:45 a.m.]

If you are sick or you go on mat leave, that’s a different story, but there are no positions being held.

R. Merrifield: Perfect. Thank you so much to the minister for the answer to the questions.

I’ll go back to my previous question now that the coroner is present, and that was: could the minister confirm that the B.C. Coroners Service has revised their investigative protocols to better capture essential IPV data, including searching the protection order registry in all IPV deaths, as per the coroner’s own report recommendation from the November 2016 coroner death review panel of intimate partner violence?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.