Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call third reading on Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act.

In committee room A, I call Committee of Supply on Votes 1 to 10 and Vote 33, followed by continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills at 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s first deal with the third reading.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR
RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy: I move third reading of Bill 5.

A. Olsen: I move:

[That the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 5) intituled Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023, be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting “six months hence.”]

On the amendment.

[2:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I’m concerned specifically by the language that was amended yesterday. Bringing this act into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor sets up an imbalance, at the table, between the lawyers and the government.

Basically, what’s happening here is…. We are, in passing this bill, going to give a powerful tool, which imbalances those negotiations in the government’s favour…. This government has proven, by carrying this bill all the way through to this final stage of the debate, that they’re willing to use the legislative option if they choose to.

What I’m offering, with this hoist amendment to delay this by six months, is a good-faith gesture by this government. Set it aside for six months. Go to the table and negotiate. Use this tool when we come back in the fall, if necessary. As the Minister of Transportation said, these decisions are best remedied at the table.

Clearly, that’s not what’s happening in this instance. So I’m giving the government and all members of the House the opportunity to provide this space and time.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is on the amendment proposed by the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Division has been called.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25
Ashton	Banman	Bond
de Jong	Doerkson	Falcon
Furstenau	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Olsen	Paton
Ross	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturko
	Wat
NAYS — 49
Alexis	Babchuk	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mercier	Osborne
Paddon	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Russell	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
R. Singh	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao

Mr. Speaker: Now on the main motion.

Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023, read a third time and passed on division.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of Supply on the Premier’s office estimates.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:08 p.m.

The Chair: Okay. We will start the Premier’s estimates for the Office of the Premier.

I will ask the hon. Premier to move the vote.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $16,045,000.

The Chair: Do you want to start with an opening statement?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair.

I’d like to start by acknowledging we’re on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Premier’s office estimates with members of this House.

For members’ advice, I’m joined today by several members of my staff: Matt Smith, to my right, chief of staff; to my left, Shannon Salter, Deputy Minister to the Premier; behind me, Aileen Machell, deputy chief of staff; and Doug Caul, deputy minister, policy and coordination, Office of the Premier.

Before we begin the budget estimates of the Premier’s office for the year ahead, I’d like to take a few minutes to reflect on the last six months. I’ve been Premier of this beautiful province now for almost half a year. It’s a great honour and, certainly, an even greater responsibility. In this time, I’ve been to many corners of the province. I’ve been welcomed into homes and businesses and communities, and people have shared the challenges they’re facing in their lives.

[3:10 p.m.]

Global inflation has increased the cost of essentials like groceries. The long-lasting effects of the pandemic have strained hospitals and clinics and health care workers. The record growth of our province has made it hard to find a family doctor for many families. The influence of wealthy speculators and investors on the housing market has made it difficult to find an affordable home, even if you make a good middle-class living.

I do hear something else when I’m talking to people across the province, and that’s hope. Despite everything we have been through together, British Columbians are rightly optimistic about their province and our future. Everywhere I go, people pull me aside to tell me what they’re working on and how they’re helping to build a stronger future for themselves, for their families and for their community.

Some say, certainly, that we should respond to the global uncertainty we’re seeing by pulling back and by reducing services or respond to the health care challenges we’re seeing by making people pay out of pocket for health care. Of course, that would make many of our most serious challenges worse. It would pass down costs at a time when people can least afford it. We couldn’t afford that kind of go-it-alone, shortsighted approach before, and we sure can’t afford it now.

These challenging few years have really shown us one thing. One thing that we’ve really learned from the pandemic is that we’re all in this together. We’re strongest when we take care of each other, when we ensure nobody falls through the cracks — everyone has a roof over their head, and in particular, the public services that people rely on are there when they need them, from health care to great schools, to mental health and addiction support — when we’re all, if the members will forgive me, united.

When I was sworn in, I promised to hit the ground running, to bring people together to solve problems whenever possible, in ways that people could see and feel in their communities, and to take on powerful interests that hold us back. That’s exactly what our team has been working hard to do every single day.

We’ve taken action to help people with rising costs as a result of global inflation. In fact, on day one, the first action I took as Premier was to put money back in people’s pockets with the new cost-of-living credits. Then we froze ICBC basic rates for two years, kept ferry fares affordable, cut child care fees by hundreds of dollars each month. That builds on the measures we’ve taken since we formed government, like eliminating MSP and bridge tolls.

We’ve taken strong action to tackle the housing crisis. For example, a new law is putting an end to rental restrictions in stratas that left units sitting empty. Our new Homes for People plan will help us build more homes that people can afford faster. While there is a lot more to do, we are starting to see encouraging signs. Rental housing construction is at its highest level in ten years.

We’re taking action to strengthen public health care so care will be there when people need it and where they need it. We’re building new hospitals and a new medical school, and we signed a new deal with doctors that is attracting and retaining more family doctors. We’re starting to see results here too. That agreement has already resulted in 482 more family physicians taking new patients. And thanks to new supports and a faster assessment pathway, 2,800 internationally trained nurses will soon be caring for patients in B.C. hospitals and clinics.

Our government has been working to make our communities safer and stronger. We’ve introduced new measures to keep violent and repeat offenders off the streets. We’re hiring 250 more RCMP officers to keep people safe, particularly in rural B.C. and with specialized teams. And we passed new laws in this Legislature to crack down on money laundering and organized crime.

In the shadow of global storm clouds, we’ve taken action to build a strong and clean economy, one that works for everyone, not just those at the top. Our B.C. manufacturing fund is helping mills retrofit and create sustainable, secure, good-paying jobs, whether it’s a forestry company seeking new equipment to make mass timber products or setting up a new plastics alternative facility in a rural community at a closed pulp production line.

Just last week we launched our future-ready action plan to help people get the skills they need to fill in-demand jobs and to make sure people are ready to seize opportunities and businesses have the talent they need to grow.

By putting people first, we built the strongest economic recovery in Canada post pandemic. We carefully put last year’s surplus back to work for people, like a new fund to support communities on the front lines of growth who are struggling to maintain a high quality of life as more and more people choose to move here — to help improve roads and water treatment facilities, to build more arenas and trails and to expand recreational options for families like pools and community centres.

As I said on the day I was sworn in at the Musqueam Community Centre, I believe B.C. should be a place where everyone can build a good life, where people can afford a decent home and feel safe in their community, where they have access to a family doctor without having to marry one — I have nothing but good things to say about that choice — where our kids are learning in great neighbourhood schools, where people can find a good job in a growing and clean economy and where we accomplish all of this in partnership with Indigenous peoples so that all of our boats rise together.

By working together, we increase resources and pros­perity for everyone living in B.C. I know every one of us wants to see these outcomes, even if we don’t always agree on how to get there.

Hon. Members, thank you for the opportunity to an­swer your questions today.

[3:15 p.m.]

K. Falcon: Thanks to the Premier for those opening comments, covering a wide range of issues, which is good. I intend to have the opportunity, with the Premier’s support, to canvass a number of those issues.

I thought I would start off on housing. I think it’s a very topical issue. It’s an issue that the Premier prior to being Premier had direct responsibility for.

I’d like to start off where we left off. We were asking some questions of government with referral to B.C. Housing and a BDO report. This is an accounting firm, BDO. The previous government had requisitioned a report on the operations of B.C. Housing and Atira. The report was returned to the new NDP government in 2018, and it was a draft report.

I have a number of questions about that report. Firstly, a simple question. Was the Premier briefed on that report when he became the Minister Responsible for Housing?

Hon. D. Eby: No, I wasn’t.

K. Falcon: I’ve been a minister in government with several significant portfolios, including Finance, Transportation, Health, etc. I must say that I’m challenged to think that the professional bureaucracy would not make an incoming minister aware of a report that is so devastating in terms of its outlining of a massive amount of potential misappropriation of funds, misspending, contracts let without proper paperwork, etc.

Is it the view of the Premier that he received no conversations with the former minister, who would have been the minister at the time that report was tabled with government?

Hon. D. Eby: The report came to my attention through public media reports. I was briefed on it at that point.

I understand the history of the report is…. It started under the previous government and looked back at a time under the former B.C. Liberal government. The advice I received was that it was resolved internally at B.C. Housing. As I advised the member, I was not briefed on it.

K. Falcon: A report by BDO was leaked on March 30, 2022. A statement by B.C. Housing — which was under the direct responsibility of the Premier, at that time the Minister Responsible for Housing — included a statement: “The recommendations in the draft BDO report were reviewed and appropriately addressed by Atira and B.C. Housing.” Was the Premier aware that that statement was inaccurate?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: As I advised the member, I was not aware of the report until the media reported on it. By that point, the work by E&Y was well underway.

The member has both the initial E&Y report as well as the forensic investigation report, which I think conclusively advises this House, the member and the public that, to the extent that there’s overlap in concerns between those two reports, they were not addressed.

K. Falcon: Well, I’m finding it challenging, frankly, Premier, to square this, because we know that back in March, when that BDO report was first leaked, the B.C. Housing corporation issued that statement, which is highly misleading as we now know, given what has happened in the subsequent E&Y reports that confirmed in spades the fact that there was a huge challenge taking place, both at B.C. Housing and at Atira, apparently.

When I later raised this issue on November 22 in this Legislature, the Premier claimed ignorance of knowing anything about that report. I’ll quote the Premier, then Housing Minister, at the time. “I haven’t seen the report that Mr. Falcon is talking about. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know.” But the following day, the Premier then admitted, “I am familiar with that report,” and indeed went on to acknowledge that he had quietly ordered a forensic audit.

The challenge I’m having here, Premier, is that you had this devastating BDO draft report, which, for five years, apparently, you knew nothing about, apparently the previous minister knew nothing about, yet this was a report that was commissioned by B.C. Housing, and I’m to understand that neither the previous minister nor yourself knew anything about it, stated so publicly, even though six months prior to that issued a release through B.C. Housing saying that all the recommendations were reviewed and appropriately dealt with, when we know that is not the case.

I’m trying to square all of this, Premier, with the comment you made with respect to me asking you directly about that, saying that you didn’t know about the report, and then the next day you acknowledged that you were familiar with the report.

Perhaps the Premier could try and explain all of this to me.

Hon. D. Eby: I refer the member to the full text of my advice to the House at the time, which was that when I was asked about the report, there was no context for it and I didn’t know what the reporter was asking me about. I came back to the House and I said: “Yes. I do know about the report.”

The challenge that I have is that this report, apparently, we’re told in the House repeatedly, was commissioned by the previous government. They didn’t say anything to the public about it at the time, didn’t announce that they had concerns, and it wasn’t even the start of their concerns about the issues at Atira and B.C. Housing.

[3:25 p.m.]

I have a letter dated January 12, 2015, addressed to the then-chair of B.C. Housing, Judy Rogers, from the comptroller general of the province of British Columbia: “Dear Judy, re. conflict of interest, B.C. Housing asset transfer. I received the attached email regarding a concern over conflict of interest. After reviewing it in discussions with my investigation group, I feel you as chair and your board are best placed to address this issue. I would appreciate communication back from you as to the resolution of this issue.”

Now, cc’d to that message was a person named Steve Carr, who worked as deputy minister under then Housing Minister Rich Coleman and a few months later became chief of staff to then Premier Christy Clark. Attached to it is an email that details concern about a conflict of interest indeed around the transfer of public assets.

The conflict of interest is, of course, the relationship between the then CEO of B.C. Housing and the current CEO of Atira — the exact same issue the member says is a priority now for him but apparently wasn’t at the time when the government was notified of the serious nature of the issue by the comptroller general’s office.

This is the same office that we asked to take action, to hire forensic investigators, to go in, to seize devices, to investigate thoroughly the allegations when I received notice of the conflict of interest. That is the difference here, and I think that’s important to put on the record.

K. Falcon: The problem with that example…. I know the government did push that out in trying to create some smokescreen, as if there was any kind of similarity between that situation and this, but we now know that all that was, was the comptroller general forwarding an email that had been sent to him saying: “FYI, someone sent this email.”

It turned out that those were tenants in a building that were concerned that Atira was going to get the management contract for their building, which they subsequently did not. There was nothing there that is remotely like a devastating BDO report. Yes, commissioned by our government. I acknowledged that. In fact, we sort of canvassed this in question period, and I pointed out it was a regular duty in our government to actually issue reports to find out what was going on at service providers.

The member will recall that in 2013, we did exactly the same thing with Portland Hotel Society, because we were hearing rumblings that there was misspending and misappropriation of funds going on there. A study was done, and a former NDP MLA from the government, Jenny Kwan, actually had to pay back money because of trips taken to places like Disneyland, Vienna, etc., on Portland’s budget. So it is not at all unusual for us to issue reports and do investigations to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly spent.

What I find troubling and hard to accept is that when that report was completed — the draft report — it was in the possession of the NDP government, and they did nothing about it. There’s a remarkable lack of curiosity, apparently, about the findings from…. If I understood the Premier properly, the former minister mentioned nothing about it to him. The current Premier, then the minister responsible — apparently nobody mentioned it to him, and I find that surprising.

Can the Premier confirm that he would meet weekly with the president of B.C. Housing, Shayne Ramsay?

Hon. D. Eby: First, I’m happy to answer the member’s question. In terms of the letter of complaint, though, and the comptroller general raising an issue of conflict, I don’t think it’s so easy to dismiss the concern of a conflict of interest simply because a letter comes from a tenant in a building.

I understand the member may take a different perspective. The comptroller general, at the time, took it seriously enough to forward it to the chair of B.C. Housing: “After reviewing it in discussions with my investigation group, I feel you as chair and your board are best placed to address this issue.”

[3:30 p.m.]

Of course, there is no evidence that any steps were taken to address this issue, and what the member skips over is the important question of why they commissioned the BDO report in the first place. What were the red flags that caused that report to be commissioned?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

I can tell the member…. He may find it curious, but I think in the context of the E&Y reports, it’s not curious at all that I wasn’t briefed about it. In fact, the E&Y reports show significant and systematic attempts by the then CEO of B.C. Housing to prevent the conflict-of-interest issues coming to the attention of government.

Now, my first notice of a serious conflict-of-interest issue at B.C. Housing was reviewing these text messages, at which point I immediately contacted the then Finance Minister, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. We asked the comptroller general to take conduct, hired E&Y, flew a team out from Toronto to do an extensive forensic investigation, to dig into it. Their investigation report was tabled in full in this House, which is, I think, the right thing to do.

In terms of…. I’ve had contact now with a number of different Crown corporations. I had the honour and privilege of being responsible for the B.C. Lottery Corp., for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, for B.C. Housing and, although it’s not technically Crown, the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch and the B.C. Family Maintenance Enforcement Agency, which was not a Crown at the time but did become a Crown during my tenure as Attorney General.

My practice with all of those Crown corporations was to have regular meetings with the person responsible for decisions of those Crowns. My practice in government, and before, is to have close relationships with the people who are making decisions so that I can understand why the decisions are being made, so I can ensure, as best as possible, effective oversight.

What’s troubling about the B.C. Housing piece, in particular, is the allegations in the investigation report of a systematic attempt that the CEO made to deceive government — everything from altering minutes, asking people to keep his name out of things, direct award of contracts, spending without authorization from government. That is why we were so concerned about the content of the report, why we took action to replace the board.

There’s a new CEO there. B.C. Housing is in a much better position today than they were, and we’re moving forward. We can’t let it slow down the work we have to do on housing. We’ve got a very serious housing issue in this province.

People need housing and B.C. Housing delivering housing for people at risk of homelessness, people who are currently living outside. I want to thank those front-line staff as well as the staff at B.C. Housing who brought this information forward to the forensic investigators so that they could do this work.

K. Falcon: I’ll take that as a confirmation that the Premier was meeting regularly with the former CEO Shayne Ramsay, and somehow, in the course of those regular weekly meetings…. In spite of the fact that back in March of 2022 a leaked report, that BDO report, came out; in spite of the fact that the Crown corporation, B.C. Housing, put out a very misleading statement that “nothing to see here,” effectively; and in spite of the fact that I raised it directly with the Premier and he denied any knowledge of the report until the next day when he said he is now familiar with the report, the Premier still insists that he knew nothing about this devastating report.

Well, it was a regular practice in our government to do reports on agencies of government. I would strongly encourage the Premier, in his position, that he should be looking at the housing providers that are doing work for the government. Obviously, a lot of taxpayer dollars go there, and I think it’s important that, on a regular basis, government is reviewing those expenditures and ensuring that taxpayers are getting full value and, more importantly, that the vulnerable folks that they’re supposed to be looking after are getting the care that they deserve.

I’m challenged with the Premier’s attempt to portray his actions as being one of transparency. On June 30, when the Premier, having been in possession of the Ernst and Young report, made a determination that he would release that report publicly — in itself a good thing…. But he chose to release it on a Thursday evening of the long weekend, Canada Day long weekend. Friday, of course, being the holiday.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the Premier thinks that releasing a very damaging report on the eve of a long weekend in the evening is the Premier’s normal way of being open and transparent.

Hon. D. Eby: The member had a number of submissions, I guess, to the House in his question. One of them was an apparent professed belief that the previous government, while he was in government and while a number of the members sitting around him on that side of the House were in government, regularly commissioned reports to ensure good governance and, one presumes, released the reports to the public and told the public about it. Of course, that’s not correct.

I listed off the Crown corporations that I was responsible for. A number of them had significant unaddressed issues that were certainly not in the public realm. In fact, there was compelling evidence that the previous government had taken active steps to suppress the information from being released, to the point of literally removing pages from reports of recommendations that they didn’t want publicly released.

I will say that when I was presented with those reports, I released them whenever possible. Had I been presented with a BDO report that detailed what had gone on under the previous administration in the housing department in terms of a lack of oversight in a relationship between B.C. Housing and Atira, assuming the member’s characterization is correct there, the idea that I wouldn’t release it to the public is bizarre, because I was minister responsible for probably less than 120 days before I launched a full external review of B.C. Housing by Ernst and Young, which uncovered the systemic and serious issue.

Following their recommendations and advice to me that the scope that government had given them was not sufficient to address the issue, I worked with my colleague, the then Minister of Finance, to work through the comptroller general’s office to retain an external party of people who wanted to do a forensic investigation, which was then released in this House.

Now, I understand the member is concerned about the timing of the release of the report, and hey, maybe critique is well placed from different quarters but certainly not from that member and their government, because they didn’t release these reports. When they did, in the exceptional situation, actually release a report, they removed content from the report so the public couldn’t see it.

When we released the forensic investigation report, it was the first time in 30 years — the first time ever, under the relevant section of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — that a report of this nature was released under the public interest exception. Now, I’m sure, if the member’s version of events was correct, it wouldn’t have been the first time in 30 years that section was used. But that is, in fact, the situation.

K. Falcon: So we’re to believe that this Premier, who likes to fashion himself as a get-things-done, hands-on kind of micromanager, somehow doesn’t know about a 2018 BDO report that is devastating in terms of its analysis of B.C. Housing in particular, and also to Atira, and then just magically decided to do an Ernst and Young review on his own.

[3:40 p.m.]

Then the Ernst and Young review comes back, and it’s extremely damning. The Premier’s response to that is: “I will release that on the Thursday evening of a long weekend.” Really checks the transparency mark, doesn’t it? It certainly reinforces why the Canadian Association of Journalists has called this NDP government the most secretive government in Canada, and it’s being confirmed.

Then, interestingly, following up on the release of that report on the eve of the long weekend, the following Friday evening at 6:34, the Premier, then Housing Minister, fired the entire NDP-appointed board of directors.

Now, when asked about whether that had anything to do with wrongdoing, because many in the public were certainly suspicious about why the Premier, then Housing Minister, would fire an entire board of NDP appointees that he appointed, the Premier’s comment was: “The changes in the board are not related to any sort of wrongdoing” — any sort of wrongdoing. “It’s just a change in direction and priority.”

Does the Premier acknowledge that that was a statement that does not align itself with the facts that we know now?

Hon. D. Eby: On the issue of openness and transparency, we took over administration of the province from a government that used Post-it Notes to keep records. That resulted in recommendations that we implemented into law that a record of decision needs to be kept.

They invented, the previous administration, a new term, unknown in government before the B.C. Liberals’ time in government, of “triple delete.” A whistleblower in the then, I believe it was, Minister of Transportation’s office, came forward and said that he had been instructed to delete responsive records to freedom-of-information requests. There’s always opportunity for improvement, but again, hard to imagine that this is the member to lecture me on that.

I can advise the member of some updates on freedom of information. Our government has increased proactive disclosures by 75 percent and added six additional categories of proactive disclosure records. We made important changes that were requested by journalists, giving them twice as much exclusive time with records they requested before they’re public and allowing them to file FOIs without worrying that others can see a description of their request, which of course, was an “innovation” of the previous administration.

The specific question. The member seems committed to wanting to smear the reputations of some very good people who volunteered, practically, to serve on the board of B.C. Housing, experts in housing, to say that they were involved in wrongdoing. It happened at the time when I had to replace the board. It’s happening again today. They were not involved in wrongdoing.

At the time, today again, I’ll tell the member that the work that I saw that was needed at B.C. Housing required different experience, a different skill set than that board had. It needed some heavy lifting around organizational culture, around processes, around safeguards. The evidence for that is clear in the reports that have been issued. In fact, now B.C. Housing is in a much better place, thanks to the work of that new board, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that the old board were good people who didn’t do anything wrong.

Now, I do want to underline that we had a point of departure about how to respond to the preliminary information from Ernst and Young from the first report. My belief was that the CEO should be fired or placed on leave during the forensic investigation.

[3:45 p.m.]

I thought the information that was presented from E&Y was profoundly concerning. I was advised by the public service that there was a gap between me and the board in both of those perspectives. Reasonable people, without wrongdoing, can have different perspectives about the best path forward. But as minister responsible for the file, ultimately it was my decision, and my difficult decision, to remove the board and replace them.

K. Falcon: Knowing just how bad things were, why did the Premier say to the public that the changes he made to the board had nothing to do with any sort of wrongdoing — “It’s just a change in direction and policy” — when he knew, because he had a copy of that report, that that was not the case?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the member doesn’t accept the answer, but it doesn’t change the reality of the answer. The board didn’t do anything wrong. The people on the board didn’t do anything wrong. We had a difference of opinion about the best path forward. I needed a board with a different set of experiences, a different skill set. I said it then. I said it in my last answer. I’ll say it again. The board members didn’t do anything wrong. I regret very much that this member insists on trying to smear their reputations, when he has literally no evidence that they did anything wrong.

What he does have evidence of is significant efforts by the previous CEO to deceive the board, to deceive government, about his compliance with the conflict-of-interest protocol. Those people who stepped forward to do that service on the board…. I want to thank them for their work, and I want to underline that we needed to go in a different direction. I stand by what I said then, in the last answer and now.

K. Falcon: It’s a fascinating answer because we’re not in any way, of course, smearing the former board. In fact, it’s the Premier and the current minister responsible for Housing that keep throwing this former board under the bus and trying to suggest that the blame lies with them for not acting on reports that they sat on for over five years, which clearly showed that there were huge problems at B.C. Housing and potentially at one of the largest housing providers.

My question is to the Premier. If that’s the case, and he’s defending this board, and that’s good…. We’ve got former board members reaching out. I’d like to ask the Premier: why did he ask them to sign non-disclosure agreements, and will the Premier release them from those non-disclosure agreements so that they may speak their truth?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I received information from E&Y that they had concerns about a systematic and repeated effort by the then CEO of B.C. Housing to avoid the conflict-of-interest rules. They advised me that the work that they had done was not to a forensic standard and that the scope that government had given them, in doing the review of B.C. Housing, was not sufficient to delve into what they had uncovered incidentally in interviews with B.C. Housing employees and in reviewing documents for the purposes of the broader review.

On hearing that information, I worked with my colleague, the then Minister of Finance, went to the comptroller general’s office, and a forensic team was brought in from Toronto. One of the core themes of those days was the need for confidentiality, in particular, in order to, as best as possible, preserve as many of the records as could be preserved at B.C. Housing — on the phones of individuals, on the computers of individuals, on the database of individuals alleged to be involved or who may have information relevant to the review — so that the forensic investigators could gather those records, because there was a feeling, there was a risk, that those records could be destroyed.

In fact, that risk manifested. Key text messages — acknowledgment by the Chief Financial Officer — including records of decision, were deleted from the CFO’s cell phone and from the CEO’s cell phone and were not available to investigators.

The board was read in to the concerns of the E&Y by the comptroller general himself. Very sensitive information was shared with them in order that they could fulfil their responsibility as directors of B.C. Housing. Based on legal advice and given the sensitivity of the information, they were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Both reports, E&Y 1 and 2, detail some very problematic activity. But again, the member suggests that somehow I’m implying that the board was responsible for that. I am not. The board did not commit wrongdoing.

K. Falcon: Unfortunately, this is a pattern right across this government. I have never seen a government that has used non-disclosure agreements more than this current NDP government. It’s remarkable.

[3:55 p.m.]

It doesn’t matter what the sector is. Health care. Even parents with kids with autism that want to go meet with the government to find out what changes they’re making are being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. So it’s no surprise that the Premier has enforced non-disclosure agreements on the former board.

But here’s the thing, Premier. E&Y has completed its work now, and those board members actually would like to speak publicly. Will the Premier, here and right now — given that that work is done; E&Y has finished its report — release them from their non-disclosure agreements, and if not, why not?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Now, I know that the member is aware of the serious privacy and HR issues at play here. I know that their side of the House is well aware of what happens when things go sideways, when political approaches are taken to these serious issues. The Misfire report that investigated the previous government’s approach to a serious allegation of a privacy breach and alleged misconduct of government employees provided a number of recommendations to government about the need to be extremely cautious in these situations.

A number of things flow from that, of course, relevant to this discussion, including legal advice to government about how best to handle this. We received legal advice that the best approach, given the sensitivity of the information related to the role of the board, was to ask the board to sign non-disclosure agreements, so that they were able to fully perform their public interest duties.

I want to underline that the full investigation report, of course, was tabled in this House, after it was done, to a full forensic standard. We can have confidence in being able to table it for the members to be able to review in its entirety — the first time, by the way, that that section had been used in 30 years since it was brought into force.

The other piece, the member suggests, is that we don’t want people to speak up. That is absolutely false. In fact, it was our government that acted on the Misfire report recommendations by establishing whistleblower protections for employees in core government, in ministries, staff, tribunals and independent offices of the Legislature. In fact, B.C. Housing came under those whistleblower provisions on December 1, 2022. Health authorities are coming under those provisions in June.

We want people to bring forward information of concern. We want to address these issues. When we get information of misconduct — serious allegations, as we did in this B.C. Housing file — we want to take action, and we want to address the issue.

The member keeps skating over which government it was that announced to the House that there was an investigation and which government it was that commissioned a report and didn’t tell anybody about it. It was the B.C. Liberal government that commissioned a report and didn’t tell anybody about it. It was the B.C. Liberal government that had concerns about B.C. Housing and Atira and didn’t tell anybody about it.

The BDO report, according to them, reviews what hap­pened at B.C. Housing and Atira during their time in government. When we got notice of problems, we advised the House, released reports and used sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for the first time in 30 years, so that everybody could review it. We took action.

It’s file after file, not just a one-off but a pattern. The B.C. Lottery Corporation — large-scale, systematic money laundering at B.C. Lottery casinos. B.C. Lottery officials were out there doing interviews saying: “No, this is just how people like to gamble. They like to bring in large amounts of cash.” They knew there was a serious money-laundering issue. Multiple reports were not released.

ICBC before the election — massive losses facing that Crown corporation but not disclosed to the public. How was that avoided? By booking the sale of the ICBC headquarters and by booking the sale of ICBC.com for $10 million — neither of them was sold — so that the public, before the election, wouldn’t know how much money the Crown corporation was losing.

[4:05 p.m.]

The member wants me to believe that this report — the BDO report into the problems at B.C. Housing and Atira, which was commissioned by the previous government — was the one that they were going to release. It was not at all like the ICBC report that was commissioned and that had pages torn out of it. This would be the different one.

No, there was a pattern. Because of that pattern, the public did not receive full accountability and transparency. Our government is different. When we receive this information, we take steps to address the issues. We’ve done it again and again. We will continue to do that.

The government has a huge responsibility for accountability to the public about how tax dollars are spent. It is my belief that the public service always wants to do the right thing. They want to bring forward the information. They need to have avenues to do that.

This whistleblower legislation will help them do that, and it will help us do our job, as elected officials — to do what we did in this issue: bringing it forward to the public, sharing information proactively with the opposition, using public interest disclosure rules to disclose to the public things that are in their interest to know. We’re going to keep doing that.

K. Falcon: This is a very important, serious topic, and we’re talking about the Premier’s government, okay? The Premier can try and go back into fantasyland and talk about prior governments. We’re actually here to talk about his government, his record, his decisions. He didn’t even answer the question I was asking, which is: will the Premier do the right thing and release the former board members from the gag orders that his government put in place through their non-disclosure agreements, so that they can talk about this subject?

Because this apparently is Mr. Transparency as a Premier, I’m certain that he would want to have that information in the public realm so that we could learn more about what happened at B.C. Housing. We could learn more about the weekly meetings that the Premier would have, when he was then Housing Minister, with Shayne Ramsay, the former CEO. I’d be interested in knowing about that, knowing about what he was up to. Now he’s trying to run, pretend he never knew the individual. It’s fascinating to me.

As if a buried BDO report isn’t bad enough, after being buried for five years, this hands-on Premier apparently knows nothing about it, and the former minister knows nothing about it. Nobody in the professional civil service thought to mention it to the incoming Minister of Housing. It’s tough for me to believe.

I’ve been the minister of major, major ministries. I cannot imagine getting a briefing that ignores a devastating report from BDO — yes, commissioned by the previous government but landing on the desk of the current government. But no, we’re supposed to believe that they never saw any of that.

Let’s just not forget the devastating Ernst and Young report that they had. The Premier, who is again Mr. Transparency, released it on the eve of a Canada Day long weekend. Yep, that’s certainly how we do things.

Then another devastating forensic audit now by Ernst and Young. Under pressure in question period, with people asking why they’ve been sitting on it for two months and when we’re going to see the report, finally, in the last week of the legislative session, they are forced to release that report.

We understand, from former board members of B.C. Housing, that there’s a third, hidden Ernst and Young report on the former CEO of B.C. Housing. That report has not yet been made public. Is the Premier aware of that report, and will he make it public?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m aware of two E&Y reports. The first report, which is a broad business-process report, a controls report about activities in B.C. Housing, was released to the public.

[4:10 p.m.]

The second report is a forensic investigation, based on initial information obtained through the first report, interviews with B.C. Housing employees, text messages ob­tained from one of those employees. Perhaps the member has more information about the third report that he’s describing. I’m not aware of a third report.

I can advise the member that when I was briefed around the first report, I had the opportunity to review text messages that I found profoundly troubling — concerning — relating to the activities allegedly of the then CEO of B.C. Housing, which caused me to, with my colleague, the for­mer Finance Minister, approach the comptroller general’s office and ask them to do a forensic investigation.

I don’t know if that assists the member.

K. Falcon: So the Premier is not aware of this report, apparently. Maybe tomorrow he will remember the report. That’s what happened last time. We’ll find out. I would remind the Premier, too, that he only publicly acknowledged the forensic audit that was underway after a week and a half of questioning here in question period, but that’s been the trend with this situation.

The Premier, as Minister of Housing, was responsible for B.C. Housing. We know that the minister was there on a regular basis, meeting weekly with the CEO. During the Premier’s tenure, there was unbelievable staff turnover at B.C. Housing — the departure of 17 senior executives, 102 staff departures representing almost 15 percent of the total employee base.

I’ve been involved in a lot of companies, and I have never seen a company that has that level of turnover during the oversight of this Premier, just while he was responsible for B.C. Housing, from March 2020 to April 2022 — 17 senior executives. We’re talking about the CEO, the vice-president of operations, chief development officer, executive director for homelessness, executive director of finance, more finance folks.

Worse than that, you’ll find, when you look at the exit interviews, the kind of commentary that many of these folks were making. I’ll touch on that in a moment. But I’d like the Premier to talk about…. Why, during the Premier’s, then Housing Minister’s, tenure, responsible for the housing, did it see the greatest turnover of senior executives and staff ever?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Two pieces. First, the member outlined the dates of the significant turnover at B.C. Housing. Of course, this was during the global pandemic. It was a hugely stressful time for many workers, especially front-line workers, across many sectors.

This was no less true and, certainly, perhaps more true for B.C. Housing employees, providing services to the most vulnerable people in our population — many of whom, it’s certainly important to note, at the time pre-vaccine — needing to deliver services, needing to work long hours with stressed-out non-profits trying to figure out how to move forward.

B.C. Housing has over 1,000 employees. B.C. Housing’s staff turnover, in fact, was below the labour market average. We issued a forensic investigation report that said that there were systemic issues within B.C. Housing related to the former CEO. I’m sure some of these resignations related to that as well.

If the member is suggesting — and I don’t think he is, because I’ve answered this so many times — that I didn’t think that there were issues at B.C. Housing that needed to be resolved, he’s obviously wrong. Within 120 days of having responsibility for the file, I had hired a third-party business firm to go in and do a review of B.C. Housing, to look at issues within the organization, to make sure they had the controls in place, to make sure they were operating optimally.

Our government is committed to delivering housing for people, and we needed B.C. Housing to be operating at its best capacity to do that. This is an organization that we had to scale up dramatically to deliver a huge amount of housing across the province.

The member may not know this. They are now one of the largest, if not the largest, residential developers in Canada and perhaps North America. They have at least 17,000 units under construction, in development. So there were huge strains. Those were the strains that we knew about. The strains we didn’t know about were revealed in the forensic investigation report that I provided the member.

Now, I can advise the member that staff have told me that the board was provided with preliminary findings by E&Y following the first report that raised concerns about the conduct of the CEO avoiding conflict-of-interest rules, and that that work was not done to a forensic standard. They were advised that they could not rely on that material. Maybe that clarifies the issue of the so-called third report. But that was the report that we directed. That was the work that we directed to be done to a forensic standard so that we could release it, which we did, which the member now has.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

This is getting fascinating, because it was not even five minutes ago that the Premier was denying that there was a third report. Usually it takes him a day before he refreshes his memory, but it appears that we’re now getting that five minutes later.

I think I heard the Premier say that he’s confirming what we have heard from former board members, that there was indeed a third E&Y report. Will the Premier please confirm that? And if so, will he make it public?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There was preliminary work done by E&Y not done to a forensic standard. That was the work that needed to be done, and we directed them to do that work.

I know the member remembers the Misfire report. I know he remembers the risk of rushing to judgment before you have all the information. That approach literally led to a man’s death. This is a serious issue — people’s reputations at risk.

When E&Y says, “We’ve got these concerns. It was outside the scope, not done to a forensic standard; we recommend you do this work to a forensic standard; we recommend you fly in a team from Toronto to seize records, to do this to the highest standards of reliability,” we take that seriously. And we released the results.

K. Falcon: Okay. Well, what we’re seeing here is fascinating. It’s about deflection, it’s about evasion, and it’s about not answering questions.

I have a simple one. I get what a forensic report is. I know they found enough damaging information in that report that they wanted to do more. I get that. Will the Premier release that report that he just referenced, publicly?

Hon. D. Eby: This is preliminary information that was gathered by E&Y. We were advised that we could not rely on it because it wasn’t done to a forensic standard. Legal advice was that we couldn’t release it. And it formed the basis of the forensic work that was done to a standard where we could release it and did.

K. Falcon: This is nonsense. I’m sorry. I’ve been around government for a long time. Been in business for a long time. You’ve got…. You can call it a preliminary report. It’s a report. It’s work that’s been done. Okay?

There was a report. The Premier required board members, when he was the Minister of Housing responsible, to sign NDAs specific to not being able to talk about that report. Will the Premier make that report public? Now that we know there’s a third report that just five minutes ago he was denying existed, will the Premier make that report…?

[4:25 p.m.]

Work that was done that formed the basis, admittedly, to say, “Oh my god, this is bad enough. We’d better do a full forensic report, fly people in from Toronto,” because this is way worse than, apparently, the minister was aware of, and he was the minister responsible for two years. Will he release the report?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I have the transcript of question period from November 23 of last year, ’22, where, in response to a question from the member who asked me this question, I outlined the steps that were taken by government and the information that was available to government at the time.

I first begin by describing the first report and why Ernst and Young was asked to do the second report.

“At that six-month mark, I asked the Crown agencies secretariat, through the public service, to initiate a review. That review was done by Ernst and Young. The work started in October of 2021. It’s called the Financial System and Operational Review. That report was, in fact, released publicly.

“During the time of that work, Ernst and Young identified that additional questions were raised in the scope of work they’d been asked to do and that they had more concerns. We asked them to continue that work, and they provided details to us in June of 2022. The information they provided to us led to us, in July of 2022….

“I say ‘us.’ I’m referring to the public service, to whom I’m very grateful for facilitating this process.

“We requested the comptroller general to initiate a forensic engagement at B.C. Housing.”

The member says this is the first time he’s heard that there was information provided from E&Y, that he characterizes as a report. I advised him of that in November.

It’s important to understand, and I think it’s critical to understand, that when you’re talking about people’s professional reputations — the reputation of the CEO of Atira, the reputation of the CEO of B.C. Housing, respected across Canada for their work on housing — it’s important to be absolutely certain, to do things to the highest standard.

In the preliminary information provided to us by E&Y, we were advised that it was not at that place where we could release it to the public. So we did that work, and then we released it to the public, including to the member.

Now, several questions ago, I asked the member about a letter dated January 12, 2015, to the chair of B.C. Housing, because although the E&Y work went back to 2016, it does seem that this was an issue for longer than 2016, because of course, the previous government — they advised us, the member has advised us — commissioned the BDO report into Atira and B.C. Housing.

In this letter of January 12, 2015, to the chair of B.C. Housing about the very conflict of interest that was the subject of the Ernst and Young work several years later under my watch, as soon as I heard about a serious conflict of interest…. The email that’s attached to it is not from…. The member said it was from a tenant. There is no indication that this is from a tenant. It’s quite dismissive, frankly, that: “It came from a tenant.” I wouldn’t be so dismissive.

[4:35 p.m.]

There’s no indication this email came from a tenant. It makes me think that the member has not actually read the email. So I’ll table this letter, dated 2015, and the attached email, for the member’s reference, so that he can bring himself up to speed about the very serious allegation that was made about the asset transfer program, the process that should have been followed by B.C. Housing, the process that allegedly was followed by B.C. Housing to favour Atira and that this individual had profound concerns about this.

In fact, those concerns were shared by the comptroller general, who wrote to the chair and said: “This is serious. Have a look at it.” It appears that nothing was done.

I’ll table this so the member can refresh his memory.

The Chair: We don’t table documents. However, we’ll share it with the member opposite.

K. Falcon: Good try, Premier. I know you keep trying to dissemble and evade the issues, but you’re not going to get away with it with me.

We now know there was a report between the two E&Y reports. That report the Premier has now acknowledged. The Premier is saying that the work that was done in these multiple reports can all be released except, apparently, that middle report.

Again to the Premier, will he make that report public in the interests of transparency, something we have not seen through this entire scandal that we’ve been unravelling bit by bit, and will he release the former board members from their non-disclosure agreements so that they can also talk and let the public know what was really going on while he was responsible for B.C. Housing?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a serious matter when government releases information that can profoundly damage an individual’s reputation. We take that very seriously. There’s a process to be followed, and we followed legal advice through this whole process, not just because I was also the Attorney General, an obligation, but also because I sat on that side of the House, and I saw what can happen when that process is not followed.

I told the members in November about the preliminary information provided by E&Y — that this was the reason why we retained those experts to do the forensic investigation, and that is the process we follow to do these things properly, which we did. The reason why the member is aware of this whole issue is because we tabled that entire forensic investigation report in this House using the public interest disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. And the reason why we were able to release it that way is because it was done to this high standard.

K. Falcon: I’m going to take that as the Premier’s refusing to release a report that would be very relevant to the public. Apparently, the Premier is very concerned about reputations, yet he continually has been going on very publicly about the former CEO and seems to have no concern about casting aspersions on his time as the CEO yet suddenly has discovered a new form of protection that he wants to abide by. We may come back to this.

I’d like to continue with trying to understand that the period in which the Premier was then the Minister of Housing responsible for B.C. Housing…. During that period from March of 2020 through to August of 2022, we saw a massive run-up in public funds being advanced to Atira, record levels of funding, at a time when the Premier, it seems virtually on a weekly basis, was coming into more and more information about all the challenges with Atira.

Could the Premier please explain why, in spite of all the growing evidence, he felt it was necessary to continue increasing their funding by record amounts?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Broadly, in terms of increasing housing funding, this government has absolutely been doing that. When the opposition leader was the Minister of Finance, the spend on housing was $72 million. In 2021, $1 billion, so a fairly stark difference in government approaches to the issue of housing.

[4:50 p.m.]

In the last year of the previous administration, $453 million for operating funding for housing initiatives. This year, it will be $1.8 billion in our budget. So, yes, a different approach. In terms of Atira specifically, we have frozen any new programming for Atira and new capital funding for Atira.

During this period of time that I had responsibility for the file, it was during the pandemic. I was advised by B.C. Housing — not by the CEO, because there’s another staff member responsible for the Atira file, in theory, we know now — that Atira was the organization that was able to act quickly to be able to open spaces to decamp Oppenheimer Park, for example — to open respite spaces for people who may have been exposed to COVID, which included three meals a day and additional services in the units. They were the organization able to respond quickly, particularly in Vancouver, to provide that housing.

I think this is maybe an opportunity for me to thank those front-line Atira staff that provided those services to people during that remarkable period of crisis and recognize the challenge of that work and thank them for taking that on.

I don’t want to take anything away from the, frankly, heroic front-line work of Atira employees at that time when I say the following.

This report makes it clear that the information that government was getting was not accurate and that the information was being interfered with through a systematic attempt to get around the conflict-of-interest rules. The disturbing thing is that it may well have been true that Atira was the only organization that could be providing this, but the reality is that the rules have to be followed, that in order for the public to have confidence in the expenditure of public resources to respond to a crisis like this, you need to have certainty that processes are being followed.

I hope that assists the member in understanding the funding issue and overall difference in approach in terms of the seriousness of the housing issue between governments, and the COVID response centres that were open during that period, the decampment and the unquantifiable issue of the CEO putting his thumb on the scale for Atira — the issue identified in the forensic investigation work.

K. Falcon: I won’t need the Premier’s assistance in understanding levels of funding.

The Premier, who has not had the opportunity to actually work in the private sector in any significant capacity, should know that if you are spending more money and getting worse results, that actually gets you fired in the real world, okay? Only in government can you actually spend a lot of money and continue to get worsening results and continue to maintain your job.

Consider yourself lucky that you’re currently in government, because I can tell you, given what we’ve discussed so far, you wouldn’t last two minutes in the private sector with this kind of record.

The Chair: Member. Member, through the Chair.

K. Falcon: Thank you. Through the Chair.

The reason I asked that question…. The answer that I think the Premier was suggesting back to me was that it was because of COVID. Let’s all try and understand this.

According to his own Ernst and Young report, the four top housing providers all received similar levels of funding for many, many years, all the way right up until just before the Premier, then the minister responsible for housing, became the minister responsible for housing.

But then, starting in 2019, a dramatic run-up in the funding that went to Atira. In fact, as they pointed out, at least $90 million in public funds was advanced just between the point at which the Premier, then the minister responsible for B.C. Housing, assumed his role — $90 million; meaning that Atira was now way ahead of all the others. For years prior to that, they all received similar levels of funding.

[4:55 p.m.]

Suddenly, Atira was getting a lot more funding. Maybe that was the right thing. I agree. There are some very good people at Atira. There are some very good front-line employees. But this Premier, who was then the Housing Minister, has been going on in question period talking about how terrible Atira is and how it’s all their fault.

Apparently, it’s all Atira’s fault, yet knowing all these reports that the Premier had at the time as the minister responsible for B.C. Housing, he’s sitting on all these reports. He’s learning virtually on a weekly basis just how bad things are, chooses to say, “Of all these four housing providers, let’s go with this one, and give them the most dramatic increase in funding,” while he was the minister responsible.

I’m trying to understand why the Premier would do that, knowing all the financial mismanagement that was apparently going on. The Premier himself, the minister responsible, said: “Let’s really crank it up just to that one housing provider.” Could the Premier address that?

Hon. D. Eby: There was a lot in the member’s question. The member…. Maybe he ran ministries differently when he was responsible for them, but I can advise him that when I was responsible, the public service gave advice about the processes to determine who the best service provider was. That was what they did. As minister, it wasn’t my job to direct: “I think this organization should get some. I think that organization should get some.” That’s not how things operate, at least when I was Minister of Housing. I’m sure the member must have had some different experiences.

Now, the member suggests that I dramatically ramped up funding to Atira. I accept the core of it, that government has increased housing funding because we think the housing issue is really serious, and in fact, our serious treatment of the housing issue is why, I believe, we’re sitting in a majority government right now and why there was a shift in government.

I do think if you don’t deliver results in government for people, you do run the risk of getting fired. I accept the member’s caution about that, based on his party’s experience.

Now, finally, in terms of their government’s approach to Atira, if the member was, in fact, choosing which organizations got funding, in 2008, Atira got $2 million. By the time their government was done, they were getting a significant portion of the admittedly limited money the previous government was putting into housing, $18 million. On their watch, funding for Atira went up 800 percent. This was, of course, at a time when they were so concerned that they commissioned a BDO report into Atira but then didn’t tell anybody about it.

Now, just in terms of the overall question of competence on the housing file, we have ten times more housing underway today than when the opposition party left government. We’re already opening housing at twice the rate of the previous government.

Purpose-built rental construction is up 650 percent compared to when the opposition leader was Finance Minister. Imagine where we’d be had he hit anywhere near those kinds of numbers when he was on this side of the House.

Housing starts at a record high in B.C., up 70 percent since the opposition leader was Finance Minister. Housing completions up 50 percent compared to when the opposition leader was Finance Minister. Imagine where we’d be today? In 16 years, the B.C. Liberals only built 130 student housing beds. Wow. Is that right — 130? I’m teasing. We all know that’s right. We’ve got nearly 8,000 open or underway in five years.

[5:00 p.m.]

The core of the member’s argument is right. We take different approaches in relation to the housing issue. We think it’s a crisis. We think we should be taking aggressive action.

Yet amazingly, every time the members on that side of the House stand up, they oppose the measures we’re taking on housing, allowing a family that has a single-family lot to build two units on that lot with the same process as a single-family home. The member’s up, saying that this is an unbelievably terrible idea. I can’t imagine why, but that is his position. That’s fine.

The member spoke to the UBCM housing conference. If the member needs the quote read back, I can provide it to him. I understand if he wants to change his position now, because it’s an absurd position.

He voted against the housing targets for municipalities. We’re trying to say to municipalities: “Look, we have to get this housing built. Our province is growing so quickly. If they want to come here for the opportunities, we need housing for them.” It’s essential infrastructure, working with cities to make sure they’re hitting those targets. Members on the other side voted against it before they voted for it.

There is a very different approach between our two perceptions of what we should be doing on the housing issue. We take it seriously. We’re taking action, and we’ll continue to take action, which includes increasing funding to provide that necessary housing for British Columbians.

K. Falcon: Well, he didn’t answer the question, not surprisingly. We were asking a pretty straightforward question. Here he is. He’s the Minister Responsible for Housing. He’s the minister responsible for B.C. Housing in particular, and he’s in possession of all those reports and information coming in about just the total mismanagement and challenges that are going on, not only at B.C. Housing, but apparently with Atira.

In spite of being in possession of this, his decision during his time there was to dramatically increase the funding to that particular organization over the other organizations — just a fascinating approach to responsibility — and then tries to say, well, of course, he’s not involved in any of these decisions. No, the person that apparently loves to micromanage and get involved in details and meets weekly with the CEO doesn’t have any idea of where all this additional funding is going. No, we’re supposed to believe that that’s the case.

Well, if, obviously, financial mismanagement is not going to be an issue for this government in terms of where to keep sending dollars…. They’ll keep sending them there, apparently. Maybe the results that they’re getting ought to be something they would at least want to pay attention to.

I heard a wonderful talk there from the Premier about how great things are in housing. I hate to break his bubble. I know they live in a bubble. It’s called NDP world, where everything is apparently great. You know, all the housing…. “We’re doing a great job. We’re building all this housing. People are great.”

Unfortunately, after six years of this NDP government and their total mishandling of the Housing file — none of whom, by the way, have any background in housing — they’ve managed to get us to the highest housing prices in North America. That’s an achievement. Third highest on the planet. It’s got to take some effort to actually be the highest housing prices in North America and the highest average rents in Canada. Way to go. That’s a really good outcome.

Frankly, I’m less interested in how much money you’re spending and wasting on programs that are getting poor results. We’ll talk about your housing plan. Don’t you worry. But I just want to finish off here. If you don’t care about the financial mismanagement…. You’re going to continue to rack up the spending to an organization that you’re apparently all concerned about and have all these reports on and increase that so dramatically.

I just want to know if you then take some concern about what outcomes are happening. As the member would know, during the time that he was the minister responsible and had oversight of B.C. Housing, etc., we saw some pretty tragic consequences at one of the Atira-run projects, the Winters Hotel, where there was a fire, where, sadly, a couple of individuals lost their lives. The sprinklers weren’t working, and the fire extinguishers were empty.

Can the Premier maybe explain to the public why his government continued to increase funding exponentially to this particular organization when they were seeing examples of failures of basic management on some of these hotels, with tragic consequences?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The Winters Hotel fire was an awful and tragic event. My understanding is that there’s going to be a coroner’s inquest into the cause of that fire and those deaths. I certainly thank, in advance, the Coroners Service and the jury that will listen to that, I’m sure, heart-rending information from family and friends about what went wrong there.

The challenge that the member raises, I think, is housing for people who are struggling with serious mental health and addiction issues. This is — at least, I always believed it was, based on information from B.C. Housing — one of the core strengths and focus areas of Atira, to provide housing for people that were otherwise not able to be housed.

There are some people who get housed, and whether it’s because of hoarding activities or whether it’s because of setting fires or whether it’s because of threats or attacks on staff or on other tenants, they don’t stay housed. This is one of the big challenges, because often these are the peo­ple who are ending up in encampments. We house them out of the encampment. They go into supportive housing. They struggle there. They’re evicted. They go back to the encampment. They go back to living on the street.

One of the challenges is that a lot of housing organizations are understandably reluctant to take on this tenant group. My understanding was always that Atira was one of these organizations willing to take on these tenants. Now, of course, I’m questioning everything, because that information was provided through B.C. Housing, and, obviously, the report points to some serious issues there.

Taking a step back, the broader issue doesn’t go away. It would not surprise me at all to find out that the Winters fire was connected to serious issues of mental health and addiction.

[5:10 p.m.]

It could be anything, but we know that those kinds of issues have come up in other buildings as well. We’ve started complex care housing. These are intensive mental health and addiction supports for people struggling with these kinds of issues. When they get housed, they stay housed. If they need to go from complex care housing into a hospital environment, their housing is held for them. When they are released from hospital, they’re not back out on the street.

This is one of the feeders into homelessness. It’s my sincere hope that this kind of housing is going to be the solution to some of the really significant challenges.

One of the things we don’t talk about often, in terms of the toxic drug crisis, is the people who survived the overdoses. They’ve survived them with serious brain injuries that interfere with their executive function and that people, increasingly, see in downtown areas in different parts of the province. So I’m very hopeful about that.

Now, the member, and I’m going to put it on the record, regularly attributes paraphrased quotations to me, things that I’ve said that I haven’t said, and so on. I just want to put on the record that I disagree with that. I’ll assist….

There is one piece that he raised in his question. He believes that his private sector experience puts him in a good position to deal with the housing crisis.

I want to give you one sample of the opposition leader’s perspective from the private sector. This is, of course, before he returned to politics. He was talking to a group of his friends from the Vancouver College Alumni Association — and not from way back, just before he re-entered politics. This is July 2020.

He talks about working with a guy named Dan Fritz. He started learning about the real estate investment business.

“We together set up a joint venture and started acquiring apartment buildings in Calgary and Edmonton and renovating them, fixing them up and then selling them off. At that time, and this was in the early to mid-’90s, Ralph Klein had just gotten into the government in Alberta.

“The real estate market was very distressed. You could buy real estate there at very attractive cap rates, 14 to 15 percent cap rates on apartment buildings. We went in there, and we acquired some cool buildings and did some renovations.

“I still own some of my inventory from way back then. It has performed very well over the years. I refinance it all the time. It has just been great.”

I think that quote reflects exactly the difference between the Leader of the Opposition’s perspective on housing and this government’s perspective on housing, including my perspective. Housing is, first and foremost, a place to live, from my perspective. People have a right to build a decent home in British Columbia, a right to shelter. From the member’s perspective, real estate is inventory that you can refinance all the time. It’s great.

There is a difference in our perspectives here, and it in­forms the approach that they took when they were on this side of the House. That approach of housing as an investment informed all of their decisions. It’s why the Leader of the Opposition wants to roll back the speculation tax. That’s why the Leader of the Opposition is not opposed at all to condos sitting empty.

The part that puzzles me is…. I don’t know why he would be opposed to building duplexes and triplexes with an easier process. I don’t understand that. Maybe it hurts investment value. I don’t know why that is.

The broad approach of our government to housing is that we can and should be involved, that there is a housing crisis, that we need to do more. We released a housing plan to do this important work.

Build more townhomes, duplexes and triplexes, homes that people that earn a decent income can actually afford. Make it easier and more affordable for people to rent out secondary and basement suites. Speed up permitting related to housing so homes can be built. Instead of just buying the footprint of the transit station, buy the properties around it so that we can build housing for people that actually use transit close to transit.

Recognize that we need thousands more social housing units and why we need a functional and effective and efficient B.C. Housing. We’re well on the way to delivering those units.

[5:15 p.m.]

More on-campus student housing to take pressure off of the rental market, where we have a lot of post-secondary students.

A rental protection fund so that non-profits, instead of speculators and investors, can buy the affordable rental housing stock that we have and keep it affordable going forward. When it’s redeveloped, the tenants are protected.

Support renters with a new tax credit. Implement a flipping tax so families that are trying to find a place to live don’t have to compete with someone who’s buying it for the short term, especially in times like this, when there’s such a restricted number of homes on the market for people trying to get into the market.

Stricter enforcement on short-term rentals. Again, in a time of a housing shortage, make sure that housing is used for the rentals that we need for people.

We are on track to meet our targets. There are 41,000 families and individuals that are housed now that wouldn’t have been housed but for the policies of our government, many of which the Leader of the Opposition opposes.

I look forward to more questions from the members. Housing is one of my, obviously, significant interest areas.

K. Falcon: That was a wide-ranging, non-answer to the question, which I think is an important one. I enjoyed his trip down memory lane. Thank you.

The Premier may have left out the fact that the only speculation I’ve noticed taking place is when he sold his condo for a handsome profit just weeks prior to the speculation tax coming in. That was interesting. However, that wasn’t my question. My question, actually, was….

At a minimum, you would think the Premier, when he was the Minister Responsible for Housing, would want to ensure that basic supplies and safety elements are going to be in place when they’re dramatically increasing funding to their housing providers. I would think that would be something the Premier would take some particular concern or interest in. Evidently not.

I would like to ask the Premier…. As he well knows, Atira has a for-profit subsidiary called APMI that manages their properties. That’s where 80 percent of the dollars you send, through B.C. Housing, to Atira go. The Premier has indicated that they’re going to do some sort of financial review of Atira. Will the Premier confirm that that will include APMI?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member suggests that I’m not interested in ensuring supplies and safety equipment are present at B.C. Housing, though, of course, that’s not true.

The member knows, because I’ve said it multiple times. The government is doing operational audits of Atira. The information that came to government from B.C. Housing about Atira, obviously, is all questionable now. That’s troubling, but we are doing those operational audits to ensure that the organization’s in full compliance with all of our expectations.

On the specific question of the operating subsidiaries of Atira…. There’s one that the member listed. I can assure the member, members of this place, that the review, the financial audit of Atira, will examine everywhere public dollars go, including into private companies, to make sure we can account for every single public dollar. And we’re examining all of our legal avenues, to be able to examine any other additional corporate entities that may exist, including entities that we may not know about.

The one piece of the Atira press release I was heartened by was their commitment that they would of course work with government and open all of their books to government. I’m counting on that assurance, but we are preparing backup plans in case that is not in fact the case.

K. Falcon: I thank the Premier for that answer, because that’s a good answer, actually. I appreciate that because whenever we’re talking about public dollars, regardless of our different political persuasions, I do think it is important that we….

And to everyone’s benefit, including Atira, by the way. They probably feel picked on quite unfairly, maybe, in some ways. But I think the public always does better when the bright sunshine of transparency is focused on where public dollars are being spent. That’s something that I’ve always felt very strongly about, so I thank the Premier for that answer.

I now want to move on to a housing-related issue. The Premier, while he was Minister of Housing, has brought forward a strategy of housing that has created chaos and social disorder in communities right across the province. The vision of the Premier was to buy motels, hotels, typically in the downtown cores, in communities across the province and warehouse people with severe mental health and addiction issues into those hotels, promising the local neighbourhoods there would be lots of 24-7 support and that there would be all these medical and psychiatric supports, when, in fact, we now discover none of those supports have ever been there.

The result has been a huge, huge challenge in communities. We have seen dramatic run-ups in violence, in human feces on the streets in front of local businesses, smashed windows, vandalism, stabbings, all manner of violence and chaos. And it has dramatically increased during the time that the Premier was the minister responsible.

I start my question by asking the Premier: does the Premier still believe that this approach of his to warehouse those with severe mental health and addiction issues, without proper supports, in communities has been a successful approach?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member talks about the remarkable period that the province went through, 2020 to 2022, through the pandemic and the exceptional measures that had to be taken by government in a number of realms, including in relation to housing.

We did, in fact, have to buy a significant number of hotels and motels in order to get people inside to address the issues related to COVID-19. Some of those projects were successful. One of them, though, particularly, was not. We had to close a Howard Johnson facility in Burnside Gorge. A number of people were housed directly from an encampment into the building, and we could never fully address the issues of behaviour of some of the tenants there.

When we had to, I took the really unfortunate but ne­cessary step of closing that site, working with the neighbours around Burnside Gorge to respond to their concerns. I say it’s unfortunate because there are only so many units available, and to close that, to give up that lease and not have it available as housing, I think is tragic.

We learned important lessons from that work and have continued to improve the work that we do, which is, I think, the responsible thing to do out of a period of exceptional response during COVID.

The member…. I understand why. We’re in estimates. He’s in opposition. He’s skeptical about housing people, but I want to reassure him and members here that the vast majority of this housing has been incredibly successful for people. It has changed lives.

There’s Violet Hayes, the head of the Island Crisis Care Society. She told CBC On the Island in May: “We like to take photos of the residents when they first come in. It’s a good thing we do, because you can look at them and say: ‘Wow.’ Three months later you don’t recognize those people because they’ve changed so much. Once they get a regular place to sleep and food inside them, it’s just totally different. Island Health comes in regularly, so we’re able to get them the support that they need healthwise. So, it really is good.”

The residents themselves are directly speaking out. Danny was a supportive housing resident in Vancouver, ultimately became a staff member, actually, at Lu’ma Native Housing Society: “I needed the support, especially when I first came in off the street. I wasn’t doing very well when I was on the street. If somebody on the street gets a supportive housing unit like this, it will change their lives immensely.”

Michael, who lives at Baird Blackstone supportive housing, 104 Avenue in Surrey. He had been homeless, off and on, 2017 to 2021, ongoing mental health fluctuations making housing difficult to keep. In September 2021, he moved into permanent housing at this site and has been engaging with all the supports available.

[5:30 p.m.]

From staff: “For those of us who have worked with Mike since the beginning, the transition is miraculous. Today he is a kind, friendly, upbeat and sociable guy, a delight to all who have the pleasure of knowing him.”

From Michael: “Today I have a roof. I feel secure and safe. I take my medication regularly and get reminders from staff to ensure I take it consistently. I have friends that also live in the residence, and this ensures I’m never lonely and always have someone to talk to if I want to.”

This is transformative work for some people. As I said to the member earlier, there are some really hard-to-house people that we have tried to bring inside from encampments that have not been successful in supportive housing, which is why, building on the 2022 investment of $633 million in reducing homelessness, we have $1.5 billion in new funding to respond, including $169 million in complex care capital investments to support those people who are really struggling and $1 billion in mental health and addiction supports to open residential hospital-like care for people who need the highest level of support.

What we’re building is a system where people…. If they can’t make it in supportive housing, they go up to complex care. If they can’t make it there, they go into hospital. When they’re released from hospital after they’ve stabilized, they can go back to complex care with intensive medical supports, hopefully down to supportive housing, allowing people to transition between levels of housing as we respond to their medical needs and the challenges that they face.

This is significant work. It’s not done. Lots more to do, but we are making a very positive difference in the lives of many people. For the people that Violet works with, for Danny and people like Danny, transformative for people like Michael, transformative in their lives.

K. Falcon: I’m glad there are individual stories that the Premier is noting, but the Premier surely must be aware of what’s happening in communities across the province, whether it’s Kelowna, whether it’s Kamloops, whether it’s Prince George, whether it’s Vancouver. I know the Premier and his group were virtually chased out of Nanaimo recently, so you know what’s happening in Nanaimo.

There has been total chaos and social disorder in the areas that this Premier and this government call supportive housing, where there are just literally no supports. I agree. You’re talking about people with huge, huge mental health and addiction issues. The problem is, Premier, your entire approach has been to force these communities, in many cases, that realize after seeing how these things are unfolding in other communities…. They have said: “Whoa, whoa. We don’t want them in our community.”

A good case in point was Penticton, when the Premier was then the Minister of Housing responsible and literally threatened them that he would buy 1,000 tents and put them all in the park, hardly the approach one would expect from someone that is trying to look after society’s most vulnerable.

The reason why communities object is not because they’re not caring and compassionate. They are. It’s be­cause they realize that these very high-needs individuals, these very vulnerable individuals, are getting no supports. Yet they’re being warehoused into these, in many cases, very unsafe facilities, or they certainly will be very shortly, because quite often a lot of the safety features are torn out of the walls. Doors are ripped off their hinges. Violence and sexual assaults permeate many of these facilities. Nobody is supported. Nobody feels safe.

The communities are paying the price from this Pre­mier’s directive and direction to have this as the core of their housing strategy. It has been a colossal disaster for communities right across the province.

Will the Premier acknowledge that? What will he do to change things so that we don’t see the levels of violence and social disorder and chaos that we’re seeing all around virtually every one of the Premier’s failed supportive housing projects?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are individuals that are not successful in supportive housing, struggling with serious mental health and addiction issues. They are causing problems in local communities. I agree with the member that they’re causing problems in terms of public acceptance of supportive housing. This is a serious issue. We’re on the same page on that.

The question is: how do you respond? For us, it’s about complex care housing, about opening spaces where people get intensive medical supports in housing. I encourage the member to visit some of these. The Foxglove site in Surrey — 39 people receiving those intensive supports, turning their lives around.

Hundreds of spaces are either open or underway around complex care. One of the challenges we face on complex care is the same as the broader health care system — having those nurses, those social workers, those addictions experts who are able to provide the intensive level of support needed so we can open these spaces.

I know the member has heard from the Health Minister about some of the significant steps we’re taking to get internationally trained doctors and nurses on the job — a focus on our provincial nominee program, to get people in, to get them through the credentialing process quickly so they can get to work and support health care broadly, which includes these, which are functionally health care environments, to support people.

I know the member is also aware of our work on public safety.

I just want to put on the record, again, where I read the member’s quotes…. The member attributes things — that I have said — to me which are not correct. I’ll just put that on the record officially. He says things that simply aren’t correct — for example, that there are no supports in any of these buildings. That’s absurd.

We are creating these more intensive health care–like supports for people that need them. This is an ongoing work-in-progress, including identifying, recruiting, training and certifying the workers who are going to be able to support these folks to respond to that. We do have work yet to do.

I’m going to take us back. I said the member opposed our initiative where we said in our housing plan to allow people to build up to four units on a single-family lot. The member said: “Oh, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Here’s what the member told the UBCM housing conference just in April. He’s got a very short memory.

“If you say you’re going to upzone every single-family lot across the province to four units, well, that is problematic policy with so many levels. First, why do we even have local government then? Right. But if the decision is going to be made in Victoria, I’m not sure that local governments are going to be fine with legalizing every secondary suite.

“You, local governments, should have some say in that. That’s why we have local governments. That’s why we say: ‘Well, we also think about what happens when you generate that kind of density in the neighborhoods that don’t have any transit or very little transit.’ That means more pollution and that there’s going to be more traffic.”

[5:40 p.m.]

He goes on:

“There is also…. Think of the upgrading costs you’re gong to have. If you suddenly go to four, you’re going to have upgrades to sewer requirements, water, power, etc. Who is paying for that? Where does that come from?

“We’re going to see these things through, but it seems like easy answers to a complex problem.”

The member may say that those are supportive comments for the policy. I don’t think so. The member clearly opposed it. He was speaking to local government officials, saying that you should still have to go through the full process with local government before you build more affordable housing. You shouldn’t go through a single-family home process for a duplex or triplex.

This is a difference between our governments. The member, when he’s speaking to one audience, local government: “Oh, don’t worry, local government. I’m on your side.” When he’s speaking to other audiences — when, I say, he’s opposed to the policy — he says: “Oh, no, I don’t oppose that policy.” The contradictions between the opposition’s positions….

I’ll say this, in the housing crisis, British Columbians deserve a government that is clear that they’re going to take action on housing, that they’re going to build housing and that they’re going to stand up for people trying to find a place to rent, trying to get into the housing market.

There are hard decisions ahead and difficult conversations, including with local governments, but you’ve got to be clear about where you’re going. In fact, we have cities that are enthusiastic about the housing plan, that say: “Come to our community. Pilot here.” I think our government is clear where we’re going on housing, and I look forward to the member opposite clarifying his position on that.

K. Falcon: The member will find all about my housing positions, I can assure you, and it will be informed by actual experience in the housing business, of which the Premier has none. That’s very evident by what we’re talking about here.

That long answer didn’t actually answer and address what I was talking about, and that is this: that the Premier, then the Housing Minister, has a particular housing policy. The housing policy was to buy up motels, often vastly overpaying for them — it was a running joke in the real estate sector about how much government was paying for these places — and then warehousing people with severe mental health and addiction issues without proper supports. I want to emphasize that — without proper supports. The impacts on the neighbourhood were just absolutely very, very clear.

The Howard Johnson Hotel in Vancouver, for ex­ample, is a hotel that, under the purview of this Premier when he was Minister of Housing, they paid $55 million for, in June of 2020. That’s about $16.3 million above its assessed value.

The troubling part of it, as Sgt. Steve Addison with the Vancouver police department pointed out, is that once they converted it to an SRO, their calls to that site skyrocketed. Police have been called to the site 2,494 times, including 751 calls last year alone, according to the Vancouver police department. That was just in April of this month. Imagine that — 2,500 calls.

We saw the horrific stabbing of that young man in his late 20s, stabbed to death in Yaletown by a complete stranger — again, part of the chaos and social disorder that’s taking place.

I’m trying to get the Premier to understand. I can give lots of examples. The Comfort Inn in Victoria, on Blanshard, which this Premier would know all about — again, purchased for $4.3 million above its assessed value — has been the subject of multiple police incidents. Officers seized drugs and weapons, with arrest warrant execution virtually on a daily basis, suspicious fires and arsons, loaded firearms and ammunition seized.

There’s just total chaos at these locations, which the Premier’s own policy has put into communities. The reason there is total chaos is the total lack of supports for the people there. That’s what the Premier needs to understand. The chaos he has seen in communities like Nanaimo, for example, is a direct result of decisions that he has made while he was minister responsible.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think it’s worth pointing out…. He would know this. He was there, as he knows. I know a number of residents were yelling and screaming and were upset. Why are they upset? Well, it’s because there was a gentleman there, Clint Smith, who was shot trying to retrieve his stolen tools from one of the sites.

Interjection.

K. Falcon: It is true. I heard the Premier say: “It’s not true.” He may want to talk to Clint Smith. He’s a 49-year-old resident who just recently awoke from an induced coma at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital.

In a separate incident, there was a 39-year-old man who was seriously injured in a downtown Nanaimo shooting, right next to the Bastion Hotel. The mayor — who is a former NDP MLA, I’d point out — says: “When government is no longer able to protect people and their property, we are in a dangerous place. As a result, some people feel they have no option but to take matters into their own hands.”

Collen Middleton, with the Nanaimo Area Public Safety Association, an association that was formed because of the chaos that arose as a result of this Premier’s housing policy, said: “Public safety is very much an emergency in Nanaimo.”

As I say, it’s Nanaimo, it’s Prince George, it’s Kelowna, it’s Kamloops, and it’s Victoria. It’s every community in which the Premier, then Housing Minister, purchased these hotels, again without adequate supports. Will the Premier provide those communities with assurances that he’s going to stop warehousing people with severe mental health and addictions issues and without proper supports being in place?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: A lot to cover in the member’s question. I’ll start with the allegation that people in the development industry don’t support government’s plan to allow an easier and faster permitting process to build more than one unit on a single family lot.

Bob Ransford, vice-president development, Century Group: “The B.C. government’s housing strategy promises more than any B.C. government has in 20 years to try to meet housing demand. Everyone should support the government in the effort to end the housing crisis.”

Casey Edge, executive director of the Victoria Residential Builders Association, “I think it’s got enormous potential…” and the small-scale multi-unit zoning change will help those people that need something bigger than a condo but can’t afford a single family home.

The development industry sees the potential, as do I, as do British Columbians, in making more affordable housing more available for people who earn a decent income but can’t afford a single family home. We stand with those folks.

For municipal governments, Patrick Johnstone, mayor of New West: “The province is committed to funding the housing we need and giving local government the tools to get it approved and built.”

The mayor of Saanich: “Today’s announcement, I think, really represents the kinds of changes that are going to be necessary.”

Jenny Tan, Maple Ridge: “I just want to say thank you to the Premier and the team for this ambitious Homes for People plan. It helps us at the local government level speed up the building of homes.”

Dylan Kruger, Delta councillor: “I was really excited about it. I think, on balance, it’s a really good step in the right direction. What I’m most excited about in this plan is the opportunity for zoning reform for municipalities, ensuring that on a single family lot, you can build a duplex, a triplex or a fourplex.”

You’ll see that the difference between the allegations the member is making in his questions and the answers I’m giving is that I’m reading quotes and providing data and information. The member has now shifted to saying something that I agree with, actually. He first said there are absolutely no services available at any of these places, and then he said — and this is where I think he’s right — for some people, there are not enough services.

That’s why we’re doing the complex care work. So you can see, we can come together in this process and agree that more work needs to be done. In terms of people that need complex care, I agree with the member. There are not enough services. That’s why we’re rolling out these additional supports for people who are really struggling across the province.

Now, there’s another issue around public safety. I agree with the member. The situation around public safety is not acceptable from the perspective of our government. That’s why we’ve taken action on it. The Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General led the charge of Premiers across Canada that are seeing this issue and worked closely with the Premier from Ontario, for example, to press the federal government to reform the federal bail rules that have led to some of these horrible incidents the member’s talking about, affecting people’s sense of safety in their communities.

[5:55 p.m.]

The federal government has, in fact, now committed to changing those rules, to introducing that legislation by the end of June, which is the right thing to do.

In addition, we’re not waiting for the feds. Integrated teams at hubs are beginning work this month focused on police, prosecutors, corrections officials, probation officials working together on these prolific offenders, making sure the courts have all the information we can put in front of them to maximize the possibility they’re going to be held under the existing bail rules to ensure communities are safe — critically important to do.

I do want to point out some of the challenges of how we got here. The opposition leader wants us to forget the conduct of their government when they were on this side of the House. In 2001, they made — and I can’t fathom — a $34½ million youth mental health cut. Well, who does the opposition member think those young people are today? Where does he think they are today? A $185 million cut to child protection in 2001. Where does he think those kids are today?

As Health Minister, he ordered $360 million in cuts to health authorities. Mental health services were cut. An internal memo from the executive director of Coast Mental Health in Vancouver called the reductions “staggering” and “incomprehensible.” The member can check on that. It was reported on CBC in 2009.

In government, they cut crime prevention funding. They cut the prolific offender management pilot programs that were proven to reduce reoffending by 40 percent in the first year.

In terms of our public safety initiatives, the member mentioned the mayor of Nanaimo. I’ve got a quote from him dated April 12: “I’m optimistic that these new initiatives will be the building blocks which will hold criminals accountable and prevent crimes from happening in the first place. I’m pleased that one of the 12 dedicated hubs will be based in Nanaimo, and I hope its integrated approach will help address the underlying issues, disrupt crime and improve safety for families and businesses.”

We’ve definitely got more work to do, and we will continue to do it. But I’ll note for the member opposite, other provinces are facing very similar issues, and they’re following our lead on some of these issues. For example, Saskatchewan adopted our provincial bail policy to maximize the possibility that someone will be held in jail after committing a violent offence, awaiting their trial, rather than be released back to the community.

We are working with other Premiers across Canada. We’ve got the Western Premiers Conference coming up here in British Columbia. It will be on the agenda there. We’ve got the Council of Federation this summer in Winnipeg. It’ll be on the agenda there. We will hold the federal government to account to make the necessary changes, but we also won’t wait for them.

So $230 million in additional funding, full funding for the RCMP across the province, including specialized teams, forensic lab funding, so that they can go after gang crime as well, so they can go after child exploitation, so that rural communities have full policing levels.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

A challenge there, of course. Our federal partners need to recruit and train the officers to fill those spots. We’re working with them and encouraging them and pressuring them to make sure that those recruits are deployed to British Columbia as quickly as possible.

K. Falcon: That was a long, rambling answer that had nothing to do with the question.

I would ask the Premier to at least show…. I don’t need any respect as the opposition leader, but I think the people viewing and watching this that are concerned about his policy of buying motels and hotels in downtown cores, warehousing people with severe mental health and addiction issues without any proper supports is creating chaos in the communities, including violence and stabbings and killings.

I would think that rather than go back and talk about something in 2001, he may want to actually address what his government and he as the minister responsible for this absolute failed housing strategy of warehousing severely mentally ill and addicted without proper supports…. He would, you would think, want to address that.

[6:00 p.m.]

Since he won’t, I’ll point out that a recent study by the B.C. Medical Journal confirmed the reality in this Premier’s housing strategy and their social housing facilities under the Premier’s watch. What did they find? Seventy-two percent of the residents report unmet health needs, 93 percent of them suffer from at least one or more chronic diseases, and to quote from the report: “The health needs are not being sufficiently addressed within supportive housing sites.”

It also goes on to confirm another shocking conse­quence of the Premier’s mismanagement of supportive housing facilities. Instead of providing a safe environment for tenants, which you would think would be part of what you’d want to do, in fact it’s quite the opposite.

This is a quote from a participant in that medical journal study. This quote is unbelievable. I quote directly: “In all honesty, I never smoked meth before I moved here. What’s the saying? If you sit in the barbershop long enough, eventually you’re going to get a haircut.”

Literally, people are going into these so-called supportive facilities without any of the proper supports being there. They haven’t even got an addiction issue. They’re not even using drugs. They may just have some mental health issues, or maybe they actually, genuinely just need affordable housing. They’re surrounded by open drug use as a result of the total lack of supports for people being there, and now they’re finding themselves becoming addicted to these horrific hard drugs.

How can the Premier defend his failure…?

A specific question, Premier. I don’t need a walk down memory lane; I just need a specific answer.

How can the Premier defend his failure to address this critical issue, this lack of any supports whatsoever, effectively enabling addiction and substance abuse to fester within the very facilities that are supposed to be designed to offer support?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Absolutely unacceptable — the member is right. But some context is important.

The report out of Kelowna is from 2020, at the height of the pandemic, when, frankly, accessing health services was a challenge for everybody. But it absolutely shows there’s more to do to support people. People are more likely to be able to access services inside than in an encampment or sleeping on the street.

I can advise the member that since this study, Interior Health has launched a new initiative called Outreach Urban Health. Nurses and social workers from Outreach Urban Health make monthly rounds to each of the shelters and supportive housing sites. There’s also a second nurse, an overdose prevention nurse, that makes weekly visits to these locations.

This is in addition to assertive community treatment, treatment support and recovery and crisis response team staff who support identified clients and those in crisis as needed. Intensive case management staff also support existing clients who live at B.C. Housing sites. In addition, Kelowna will be getting an additional 20 complex care beds for people who need that additional care.

The second piece. I mean, one of the things we did see during the pandemic is people that were on the edge or were struggling in one way or another really struggled during the pandemic when they weren’t able to access services. This report certainly confirms that. B.C. Housing sites were not exempt from that reality.

I know the member disagrees, frankly, that the record of the previous administration is relevant in this conversation. But I think it is, because the member wants to say that the approach of this government is not the right approach, that his approach is better. We don’t have to guess at what his approach was.

In an HSA report from 2010, the impact of the $360 million in cuts, made by the opposition leader then, cut funding to the ATLAS youth recovery centre in Terrace. By the way, that was the only residential recovery centre for youth in the northwest. They closed the adolescent psychiatric unit at Abbotsford Hospital. It eliminated psychology services for adult rehabilitation at Royal Inland Hospital. They closed the only withdrawal management program in the Fraser Valley at Chilliwack General Hospital.

They cut the social work budget in the Fraser Health region hospitals, resulting in a loss of 14 positions. They closed Waddell’s Haven Guest Home in Mission, a residential mental health facility also providing addiction services. They cut funding for 11 residential care beds at Bear Creek Lodge and 11 residential care beds at Newton Re­gency in Surrey. They closed outpatient psychiatry programs at UBC Hospital, including the anxiety disorder clinic and the integrated personality program.

We are working hard to build back what we lost under the opposition leader. I know he thinks it’s not relevant, but it is highly relevant. Many of these services that were cut are services that supported kids who are struggling.

K. Falcon: Once again, we hear the Premier dissembling and providing half-information. He never talks about the places that were opened, only places that were closed. But that’s typical of this Premier. We’ve seen that pattern through the entire B.C. Housing scandal.

We’re now getting a better understanding of why he’s not answering questions around the total lack of supports that he promised when he was Minister Responsible for Housing. He told communities those wraparound supports would be there, and they weren’t. Now we hear that a weekly visit by a nurse…. God bless the nurse. That’s wonderful that she has taken the time to come and visit weekly. But these folks, to the Premier’s own admission, have very high needs, severe mental health and addiction issues, creating chaos in the surrounding communities. And he’s talking about a weekly visit.

Well, reality check for the for the member here, because he won’t talk about and won’t answer the questions I’m asking. I’m going to give him some more facts.

A real life example: Adam Braaten, a young man with schizophrenia living in Mission Flats Manor, one of this Premier’s supportive housing projects in Kamloops, when he passed out from an apparent drug overdose, landing on his arm and staying there for at least — they figure — two days. Okay? Nobody checking; no supports. The end result of that is they had to amputate his arm.

[6:10 p.m.]

Now the operator of the Mission Flats Manor said: “Peo­ple with complicated mental illnesses and addiction can’t find adequate treatment in the province.”

The point he was making is that they are not capable of handling the level of clients that this Premier, as the Minister of Housing, made a conscious determination to warehouse into these facilities, without proper supports, creating total anarchy, chaos, violence, crime and open drug use in the communities surrounding these areas. That’s his record. He can go and talk about totally unrelated issues and read quotes into the record, but he’s disrespecting the people who are living with the consequence of his decisions, his government’s decision. That is the specific direction they’ve gone in.

What does the Premier have to say to cases like that, that are very common, where the promised wraparound supports are not there, by his own admission? A weekly visit by a nurse for patients that suffer from severe mental health and addiction issues, left on their own, no supports, exploited and abused in the communities, and terrible outcomes for those communities.

What does the Premier have to say to those people watching this that don’t want to hear the rhetoric about something that may have happened 20 years ago without the full story being told?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s stories like these that are exactly why we’re opening the complex care beds across the province. There is a group of people who are struggling in supportive housing. The member and I agree on that, and we’re taking action on it.

The major limiting step, and the challenge we face in health care generally, is the staff able to deliver these services. The member is also aware of the steps we’re taking to make sure that those staff are available: everything from fast-tracking — recognizing the credentials of internationally trained health care workers; specifically recruiting, in our immigration provincial nominee program, social workers and others able to provide that support, fast-tracked to being able to work in the province; the future-ready skills program with training for health care workers, as well as people to be able to provide support.

[6:15 p.m.]

I visited a number of psychiatric nurses in school that are training to provide services exactly like this in the facilities that we’re opening across the province with our $1 billion investment in mental health and addiction.

The member is absolutely right. We’ve got to do more. I’ll tell you what one mayor is saying today: “We’re very grateful for the work B.C. Housing has been doing in our community to provide housing and services to our vulnerable population. The purchase of this building and the additional services are extremely important to our community and shows B.C. Housing’s commitment to working with us to support our vulnerable citizens.” That’s Mayor Simon Yu in Prince George, today.

I think that the member is really missing why I’m discussing this important issue of how he conducted himself when he was in government — the decisions that he made, which are different from the decisions our government has made.

I think it’s important to note that there was one addictions facility that the member supported, Baldy Hughes. I understand that the opposition leader attended the facility in person at least twice, once to deliver a $500,000 cheque, in July of 2010, while he was Health Minister. That was to support the facility.

He attended again when he was on his leadership cam­paign, where he was introduced by the head of the facility as “the next leader of the party.” The executive director, according to news reports, pressured residents of the facility to call for the Leader of the Opposition’s 2011 leadership campaign, provided them with party membership lists to call.

A source says that when residents said no, the executive director “…gave them grief…. It was a very political environment.” It was run by a former B.C. Liberal staffer and a public supporter of the Leader of the Opposition’s then unsuccessful leadership campaign — tweeted about it.

There are different approaches to mental health and ad­diction, to the vulnerability of the residents in these sites. But if the member thinks that his record on these things is not relevant to British Columbians in deciding which direction we should go, he’s very wrong about that, and his conduct does speak for itself.

K. Falcon: When we’re asking serious questions, really serious questions, about a housing policy that he was fully responsible for, that jammed every community into motels and hotels, warehoused people with severe mental health and addictions — which, by his own admission, the supports aren’t there, even though they promised the people wraparound supports…. It has created chaos in the communities, and he wants to talk about 20 years ago.

Well, I will tell you this. Never, never did we see the level of chaos, violence, social disorder that we’re seeing now after six years of NDP government. Never. No­where. You can go anywhere in this province, talk to any of those communities.

Go talk to Nanaimo. He got just chased out of there. Go to Prince George. Go to Terrace. Go to Vancouver.

Travel around, Premier. Go talk to people at the front lines and see just how much they’re enjoying the changes that you made because of your policy that you drove as the Minister Responsible for Housing.

Interjection.

K. Falcon: Who said that? Okay. Well, you’re not the Chair, so you just can hold it. I’ll listen to the Chair, thank you.

Instead, what we’re going to hear is a rhetoric that he can save for an election campaign. Happy to have that kind of rhetoric during the election campaign.

By the way, I can’t resist. He did just go through a leadership race, a rigged race where he took on a young woman of colour who dared to get involved in the race and was clearly going to beat him, because she signed up way more members, and through his friends and insiders at the party, managed to drive her right out of the race. It wasn’t good enough to drive her out of the race. He had to slag her reputation too — totally unacceptable, in my view. Nevertheless, we know how this Premier operates.

[6:20 p.m.]

I’m going to move on, because we can’t get a straight answer out of the Premier there.

I want to talk about the Premier’s latest experiment for making matters worse. Again, we’re talking about results and outcomes, something this Premier never talks about. They talk a lot about how much money they’re spending. “Oh, we’re spending this, and we’re spending that.” They never talk about outcomes. There’s a very good reason that they don’t, because their outcomes are never good.

The latest is the NDP’s reckless decriminalization experiment. This is where they’ve gone to the federal government and said: “You know what? We would like you to give us the ability to decriminalize hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine, Ecstasy.” Well, they wanted 4½ grams. But even the federal government said: “Well, hang on a second; 2½ grams is more than enough for your experiment.”

the federal government was also very clear. They said: “You’d better make sure there are guardrails around this before you do it.” In their letter of requirements, they said: “Make sure that there are proper treatment facilities in place before you go down this policy experiment of yours. Make sure that you’re taking the unique needs of communities into account before you go down this reckless policy experiment.”

I’m using the word “reckless.” The federal government didn’t. I certainly will, because we’ve already seen the evidence. Portland, Oregon tried this experiment with decriminalization. What did they see a year later? In addition to increased addictions and chaos in the communities, a 39 percent increase in overdose deaths.

I want to just ask the Premier quite simply: how does he defend his government’s dismal performance in adhering to any of the requirements set out in the federal government’s letter of requirements?

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of notes. First of all, the issue of the toxic drug crisis is probably one of the hardest issues faced by government, but I think for a family that’s lost a loved one to overdose or for someone who’s lost a partner or friend, it’s so much harder. It’s a profound tragedy. With a number of these folks…. I know the Leader of the Opposition has too.

When those people who are grieving the loss of a loved one say to you, as an elected official, “Do everything possible to prevent a family from having to go through what we are going through right now; try whatever you can to deal with this problem,” I understand that.

[6:25 p.m.]

A number of people and organizations that have this perspective presented to an all-party committee on this issue. That all-party committee put their heads together, and they said: “What is the best thing? What is our best approach? How do we deal with this?” That is the policy of this government.

It’s a difficult thing. It’s an important thing that somebody who has an addiction issue doesn’t feel like a criminal, that they’re able to come forward, talk to a nurse, talk to a friend, talk to a family member about their addiction, to start to access supports and treatment. We know we’ve got more work to do on treatment and supports, more spaces to open. We’ve got $1 billion in the budget to do that kind of work.

The challenge I have is that the opposition leader wants to have it both ways. To some people he wants to say: “Hey, yeah, absolutely. We support this. You know, we understand the serious nature of the issue.” To other people he wants to say: “No way. We don’t support this. It’s crazy.” Leadership means taking challenging positions, explaining to people why you’re doing difficult things or you’re putting in place the research to see: is it working? Is it making a difference for people? Is it having unintended effects? Working with police. This was a policy recommended by the chiefs of police in British Columbia.

I’ll give you a couple of examples of the activities of the leader of the opposition and his caucus in terms of trying to have it both ways. The MLA for Richmond North Centre said in Mandarin: “We’re totally against so-called safe injection sites.” That was February 8, 2023, in the media. Then the opposition leader came out, had to clarify that, no, that’s not actually the position. Actually, he said: “I was one of the ministers that went through many of the trials that allowed for replacement drug therapy. I was a supporter of safe injection sites, so my record is clear.” That was March 10, 2023.

A few days later the opposition leader said: “I’m very concerned about, you know, all the language they use: harm reduction, decriminalization, safe supply. What message are we sending to our children with that language?” That was on LS Times TV, March 14, same year, literally within four days of saying that he was the guy, the minister that was a supporter, that his record was clear.

Then just a few months ago, his party unanimously voted for the recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Health, including language like: “Fund measures to ensure a prescribed safer supply of substances is available in all areas of the province…. Support the successful implementation of decriminalization.”

This is challenging work. We’re going to need to continue to work with local governments, with police, with health providers, with people struggling with addiction, with their family, with their friends to make sure this works. But I want to be able to look in the eye of people saying, “Do all you can to help keep our loved ones alive,” and say: “We’re doing all we can, including trying to do things differently.” If it doesn’t work the way we intend, then we’ll try a different direction, but we do have to try these things.

Leadership, in my opinion, means standing up and explaining that consistently to British Columbians.

K. Falcon: First of all, the Premier should know that trying things means being responsible about it.

When I was Minister of Health, I did indeed…. We had the NAOMI trials and the SALOME trials, and that was about drug replacement therapy to see whether we could have a situation where those that are in severe addiction crisis could have replacement drugs that would allow them to transition so that we could get them into treatment.

I’m proud of supporting that, but it was based on evidence and outcomes. Same with safe injection sites. Frankly, I think in many of the safe injection sites, we’ve totally lost the plot, certainly under this government. There is no focus on helping people get to treatment. The idea was that we didn’t want them to die, so if we could provide a safe place where they could shoot up, then we could connect them to services at that location so that we can get them into the treatment that they need. That’s the approach that we took.

Now, the member is trying to talk about the Health Committee as if this was the basis on which they decided to go ahead with decriminalization. Well, that’s not accurate either, and I think it’s important that we correct the record on that. The Premier and his government ran in 2020 with a platform that said they were going to decriminalize hard drugs, and that’s what they’ve done. Give them credit. They’re following through on what they said they would do. I’ll give them marks for that. But all the Health Committee did was look at this risky experiment that they were going under.

[6:30 p.m.]

Actually, what they said, the Health Committee, on page 48 of the report…. I’ll read it into the record for that member. “Committee members recognized that there is preliminary work that must be done to support the implementation of decriminalization as outlined in the letter, particularly with respect to consultation and to improving access to health services.”

This is the part that is so critical, because the letter of requirements said that before going ahead with their risky experiment, they had to improve access to health services, including: “Ensuring that individuals who desire treatment or other supports can access them when they’re needed.”

Now, we already know from the minister responsible for Addictions that she can’t even tell you how many beds are currently available right now for those that are struggling and looking for treatment. That’s clearly not something that is in place.

Then they said: “…educating the public as part of a comprehensive public education plan and engaging with communities.” None of that has been done.

I can tell you I do worry about children. The message this government is sending out and the terms that they use, like decriminalization, can send the wrong message to kids without proper education, because decriminalization, to a child or a teenager, can be: “It’s legal. Great.” We’ve already seen what’s going on now, that people are taking advantage of this with their ice cream trucks that they’re repurposing so they can drive around selling illegal drugs in Vancouver.

One of the other areas that the federal government said was stating objectives intended, based on data collection that needs to start immediately to establish a baseline. You have not done that. They have not done that. In fact, they’ve already missed their first quarterly report on the baseline data they were supposed to have gathered.

My concern is this: we already see the social chaos and disorder that has resulted because of the Premier’s warehousing of people with severe mental health and addictions into downtown cores in these motels and hotels. We canvassed that quite thoroughly here. We heard from the Premier that he acknowledged there are very limited supports. Now he’s going to throw gas on the fire by saying, “Let’s decriminalize hard drugs, without guardrails,” and communities are having to deal with this outcome.

My question is: how can the Premier go forward with his risky experiment in decriminalization without having proper education in place for our children?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, the member attempts to explain why they voted to support a plan but don’t actually support it — inconsistent messages. The challenge that we face is a serious one. The member made those comments about overdose prevention sites and was called out.

On February 14, 2023, he made comments that he repeated here today. I’m sure he’s aware of this article. He said that there needed to be a focus on helping people connect to treatment or recovery services — I agree 100 percent — but he said that’s not happening. Sarah Blyth, who runs these sites: “He really doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because he hasn’t actually visited us.”

[6:35 p.m.]

I couldn’t agree more, though, with the member in terms of the whole idea of enabling people to be able to speak more freely to friends, relatives, nurses, others about their addiction, not make them feel like criminals, create the possibility for them to do two things. One is to stay alive, and the other is to connect to mental health and addiction treatment. That’s what it’s all about. There’s no gap between us on that. The gap is in terms of the approach our governments took to actually delivering an expansion of these services.

I will say this. I hear from someone like Jonny Morris, who’s the chief executive officer at Canadian Mental Health Association, on our Budget 2023 when he says: “I would say the word ‘historic’ does fit. I’ve never seen the number one billion in the same sentence as mental health and substance use care in my 25 years of being in community mental health.” Then: “This significant commitment will likely make the government of B.C. a provincial leader in mental health.” I think we’re on the right track.

The member rightly raises concern about this individual who was selling drugs from a truck, did some media on that and was promptly arrested. Probably the public will end up owning that truck through the civil forfeiture process, just like we now own the Hell’s Angels clubhouses and just like we’re going to continue to pursue the assets of individuals who think they can profit from the misery, death and destruction of the overdose crisis by selling drugs, through the unexplained wealth order legislation that we introduced.

This is a very challenging but important issue, and we’re going to keep taking the steps necessary to address them.

K. Falcon: Of course he mentions that yes, the individual was arrested — I would argue, in large part, because we kept raising this issue, including in this House, with no response from the Premier or the ministers or any of the government members talking about it. But of course, under the soft-on-crime Premier, he was released the same day.

Part of the letter of requirements said that you had to make sure that you dealt with the unique needs of specific regions and communities. One of the things that we’ve heard from these communities is that although they have bylaws in place to say that you can’t drink alcohol; in some cases you can’t even smoke cigarettes; in Vancouver, you can’t even bring a plastic straw to a playground, park or a beach; but no problem with open drug use. You can pull out your heroin, your fentanyl, your crack cocaine, your crack pipe, no restrictions whatsoever.

Again, these are the kind of guardrails that need to be in place. Why? Because without those guardrails in place, you can be at the beach with your young children, and an individual can sit down and start engaging in open drug use right next to your child. And the police can’t do anything about it under the current rules.

These communities, naturally, because they haven’t been consulted by this Premier or his government in their reckless decriminalization experiment, are now trying to pass bylaws to say: “We don’t want to allow open drug use in our communities, in parks, playgrounds and beaches.”

What’s happening? Well, the government is pushing back through the health authorities, saying: “No, no, no. You can’t do that.” In fact, the radical activists in the Premier’s former life from his Pivot Legal Society also weigh in, threatening to sue if they dare to put in any restrictions on wide-open drug use in parks, playgrounds and beaches.

My question to the Premier…. Actually, before I say that, I want to recognize that this is something supported…. I noted the Premier read some old quotes from chiefs of police. Here is a more recent one from the Vancouver chief of police, who has supported a provincial ban on the public consumption of hard drugs.

Police chief Adam Palmer stated: “It’s just common sense.” I agree with him. So do parents in every part of this province agree with the chief of Vancouver police — a great police chief, by the way — that said it’s just common sense. Will the Premier ban the use of lethal drugs like crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, fentanyl for open use in our public parks, playgrounds and beaches?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member suggests that we’re not in compliance with Health Canada. In fact, we’re working closely with Health Canada and spent extensive time preparing for implementation, training for police, working with health authorities to ensure the police are able to connect individuals they interact with to care, public education, engagement with Indigenous partners — and more work ongoing.

One of the things that the previous Premier committed to, one of the things that I absolutely commit to, is as we do this work together. Issues are going to come up, issues that we need to address.

Municipalities have authorities to enact bylaws. Some municipalities have already taken that step. There are existing rules about being in a state of intoxication in a public place. It doesn’t matter what drug you’re using. Police have tools available for them there. We certainly heard, I’ve certainly heard, from local governments, from police, that they would like more tools from the provincial government to respond to this. So I will be working, and the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Mental Health and Addiction will be working, with those municipalities to address these issues.

The member is absolutely right. There is no reason why, when we have an overdose prevention site available, someone is using in a park, in the doorway of somebody’s store, on a beach, on a playground. We want people to be using these sites to prevent them from dying. If there are tools that we can put in place that address that public health concern as well as the totally legitimate concerns of these parents, I’m all for it. So we’ll be doing that work, and we’ll continue to work with local governments, with police and others to address issues as they arise.

A critical part of this work is ongoing monitoring, research and evaluation. We’re doing that work too, together with the federal government. We’ll continue that work to make sure that we know if there are other unintended consequences we should be addressing, whether it’s saving lives, whether it’s keeping people alive so they can get into treatment.

I agree with the member that we should be focusing on evidence here, because this is a very sensitive, important issue — to keep people alive and get them into treatment. Frankly it’s going to take all of us working together across all the key stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to make sure that we get this right.

K. Falcon: Well that’s the problem, Premier. This work should have been done beforehand.

What you’re saying is that you’re going into this reckless decriminalization experiment, and you’re just going to try and figure out stuff along the way. Well the problem is that the damage is already being done, and you’re putting lives at risk by taking such an irresponsible position when it was very clear in the letter of requirements that there should have been guardrails in place before you started this experiment.

Now we’ve got the kind of situation where you’ve got a young five-year-old in Nanaimo who finds a packet of fentanyl in her playground, brings it home and is there under the kitchen table with her two-year-old brother to show him the cool packages she found at school. Because, of course, fentanyl is often packaged in these little squares that looked like dice.

Fortunately, the mother, the young mom, happened to see what was going on and wandered over to say: “What have you got there?” And it turned out to be fentanyl. Enough fentanyl that could have killed those two children.

[6:45 p.m.]

You haven’t got the guardrails in place, Premier. You’re proceeding with this reckless experiment, throwing fuel onto the fire that’s already burning with the social disorder and chaos that we’re seeing in every community across the province, made worse by your soft-on-crime policies, which we will talk some more about tomorrow. This is an easy question.

Ray Bernoties, the former chief of the Oak Bay police department and former chief superintendent in the RCMP, an individual that knows a thing or two about crime and criminals…. His comment was: “Drug usage must be prohibited from parks and beaches. That was among many caveats to my support as a police chief for decrim. When kids don’t matter, you’ve lost the plot.”

This is a super-easy decision. I can tell you, as a Premier, I’d make that decision in two minutes. “Yes, we’re putting the guardrails in place. Yes, it’ll be provincewide. Yes, we’re going to make sure that children and families aren’t going to be exposed to open drug use in parks, playgrounds and beaches.”

Why can’t the Premier, for once in his government, instead of having processes that go on forever, just get to a result and an outcome and do the obvious thing and ban the use of open drugs and dangerous drugs in front of children and families in parks, beaches and playgrounds? Commit to that right now.

Hon. D. Eby: I am a parent of kids about the same age as that family. A horrific story, a horrific incident for their family. I can’t imagine how that mom feels. Certainly there are other parents, too, across the province, grappling with the fallout from our toxic drug crisis in different ways. This is killing children. It is killing children in our province. The member is right. And it’s horrible to talk to a mom who has lost a kid when the kid thought they were doing some party drug in high school and dies of an overdose.

It is an incredibly, profoundly, challenging issue. The goal we have here is to do things that work. Sometimes to do things that work, that have the impact that you want, you have to talk to people. You have to work through with your partners to make sure it’s effective. I don’t apologize for that. It’s necessary. In fact, I would argue it’s essential to good governance.

We want safe communities for everybody. We’re doing work with partners — police, prosecutors, probation officials, local government officials, specialized teams, pushing the federal government with other Premiers.

At home, the commitment to continue to address issues as they arise. I agree with the RCMP member that… You read the quote. We’ve got to look after our kids. Got to look after our kids. If you’re not looking after your kids, you lose the plot. We’re going to do that. We have to address these toxic drugs that are killing our kids. We have to make sure our playgrounds are safe for our kids. Every British Columbian deserves that. We’re going to keep doing that work.

I make that commitment to the member and to all British Columbians. That is a priority for our government. The work and the steps that we take are going to be effective because we do it in partnership.

[6:50 p.m.]

K. Falcon: Well, thank you. I’ve got kids too, ten and 13. Many of us in this chamber do.

I’m really, really concerned about where this reckless experiment is going. Without the guardrails being in place, which they specifically laid out in the letter of requirements…. It’s beyond me why the Premier would plunge forward with this reckless experiment, knowing what has happened in Portland, Oregon, and not even put in the most basic things.

As the former chief of police said, you’ve lost the plot. When kids don’t matter, you’ve lost the plot.

This doesn’t require a lot of process. I hate to break it to the Premier. It requires the courage to make a decision. That would just be filling one of the guardrails that has been absent here. We’ve already had a young mom, as I pointed out, that nearly lost two kids who brought home fentanyl from the playground.

How can we have a situation in this province where…? You’ve got the city of Vancouver saying you can’t drink alcohol. You can’t smoke cigarettes at the beach. You can’t even bring a plastic straw, for God’s sake. But no problem. Under this Premier and NDP government’s policy, you can just do all the drugs you want. Any type. The sky is the limit. No problem.

They’re being forced to try and deal with this in a patchwork way. That’s the problem. When they’re trying to do it, the Premier’s government is pushing back and saying: “Don’t. Stop.” That’s what happened in Campbell River — not just the health authority pushing back but the Premier’s old radical friends at Pivot Legal threatening to sue. That’s really helpful. All they’re trying to do is protect their kids in these communities.

A patchwork approach is not working. It requires a decision, a decision I would have made in two minutes as Premier. Apparently, this Premier and this government have trouble making decisions. We’ve seen that in every­thing we’ve been canvassing today.

Unfortunately, I’m not going to get a clear answer here, but I want the Premier to know this. We are going to continue to raise this issue, as we have been in the Legislature during question period, as I am doing now during the Premier’s estimates. We’ll continue to raise this until they bring in the proper guardrails and protect children and families from this reckless decriminalization experiment they’re taking the province of British Columbia on.

Hon. D. Eby: Would that the member had taken just a moment to consult and engage before cutting services for young people around addiction, mental health and other essential supports. I understand that he didn’t feel the need to engage before making those cuts to essential services. Obviously, we have different approaches.

I believe strongly that if we want our policy to be effective…. We need to work with our partners to ensure that it works. We’re going to do that work. We’re going to address those issues.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member disagrees with it to the point that he’s shouting at me across the chamber. Don’t talk to other people. Don’t work with other people. What? Why?

I don’t understand the opposition to this idea. It’s not what he said. The controversial thing I’m saying is that our government is going to work with other people, and the member is shouting at me about that. We’re going to work with other people because we know that these are complicated, challenging issues.

I talked to the Premier of the Northwest Territories, the Premier of the Yukon, the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Saskatchewan. Grappling with public health and safety issues. The challenges in Alberta — two police officers shot by a 16-year-old boy. These are hard issues. These are challenging issues.

We met with the governor of Washington state and the governor of Oregon. Very similar issues down the coast.

These are hard issues. We’re all looking for the best way forward to deal with the toxicity of the drugs we’re seeing; with the bail policy in Canada, the fallout from that; and with the rise in repeat violent offending.

We are doing that work. We’re going to continue doing that work, and we’re going to do it in partnership. That’s the only way it’s going to be effective. That’s my commitment to British Columbians. Every British Columbian deserves a good, safe place to live. It’s the focus of our government.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:55 p.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 resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Dean moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.