Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Dean: I call Committee of Supply estimates, Office of the Premier, to continue.

[1:05 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order.

We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Office of the Premier.

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

The Chair: It’s my understanding that there was a question pending. Is the Premier prepared to address that or…?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes. There are a couple of key issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the issue of prescribed safer supply. First, he seemed to suggest somehow that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and I were somehow at odds on the issue of what was being tracked and what wasn’t.

The quote that he read from the minister was that in response to data from the coroner’s office, the coroner’s office is not currently breaking out hydromorphone. The situation is, in fact, that we are tracking hydromorphone. The member suggested that that meant that we weren’t tracking hydromorphone. But, in fact, we are, through all of the research studies that I outlined to the member, but it’s not currently broken out separately by the coroner’s office.

The second component of the member’s question was really around the issues related to services for children and youth and making sure that children and youth have access to care, especially when they’re struggling with addiction. We know that if we can intervene early when someone is struggling with addiction, we’ll have far more success than if we wait in terms of the kind of lives that they’re going to have ahead of them. That is certainly a critical piece of our work.

We have a number of different initiatives focused on young adults and youth. We have multidisciplinary integrated child and youth teams in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, Comox Valley and Richmond, ongoing implementation in Coast Mountains and Okanagan Similkameen school districts.

There are seven new communities that are implementing ICY teams, including Fraser-Cascade, which includes Hope, Harrison, Agassiz, Boston Bar; Kootenay-Columbia, which includes Castlegar and Trail; Mission;, Nanaimo-​Ladysmith; North Okanagan–Shuswap, which includes Salmon Arm; Pacific Rim, which includes Port Alberni; and Powell River. ICY teams are going to expand to another eight school district communities, for a total of 20 communities by ’25-26.

We continue our investment in the Foundry site expansions, towards 23 centres provincewide by ’25-26. These are youth mental health support centres, drop-in centres for kids that are particularly at risk of addiction who are struggling with mental health and mental wellness.

The Ministry of Education and Child Care has implemented the mental health in schools strategy, embedding positive mental health and wellness programs and services for students in all school districts.

[1:10 p.m.]

Young people aged 12 to 24 who are struggling with sub­stance use disorder and their families are going to benefit from 123 new beds that build on our Budget 2021 investments. These investments are having a real impact on availability of treatment. For example, when we formed government, Interior Health didn’t operate any youth treatment beds. They now operate 25 youth treatment beds, and there are more in development.

With respect to safer supply generally, the preliminary findings have shown that people who are provided a prescription have shown a 76 percent decrease in mortality in people receiving prescriptions for opioids compared to those who do not. Obviously, this is a serious thing, and it’s something we’re approaching carefully in an evidence-based approach. It actually builds on work that the member says he is proud of doing, the NAOMI and SALOME trials.

There is unfortunately an additional correction to put on the record. I mean, this work is hard enough in terms of the disturbing facts of the number of deaths, the toxicity of the drugs that are in community and the desperate efforts of physicians, nurses and others to get between predatory drug dealers and people struggling with addiction. But we do need to start from the basis of what is happening.

The member made a number of claims about overdose prevention sites that were contradicted by the operator of those sites, who said: “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He hasn’t even visited us.” Today, again, we checked it out and confirmed that St. Paul’s doctors are in fact continuing to prescribe hydromorphone.

What St. Paul’s doctors are doing is…. There are people who are not responsive to hydromorphone because they have a severe addiction to fentanyl, which is even stronger than hydromorphone. So they’re trying to find out how to best recalibrate medications that meet those specific patient needs. The work that they’re doing is very responsive to what they’re seeing in community, and we want them to do that. We want those doctors to be responsive to what they’re seeing in community. We also want that evidence, which is why we’re doing all that research they were talking about.

I want to also thank St. Paul’s and Providence Health. We are working with them right now to implement a first-of-its-kind treatment regime where people who show up in the emergency room with overdose are able to go directly from the emergency room to detox to treatment, right on site at the hospital. We’re doing that work with them.

I look forward to having more to share with the members soon about that important work in delivering additional treatment at that hospital that sees a lot of overdoses related to the toxic drug crisis.

K. Falcon: It’s important. I know the Premier mentions lots of programs and this and that and how much money they’re spending, etc. But it’s actually the results that the public of British Columbia is most concerned about, and what we’ve seen, as the Premier would know well, under his government is that every year that they’ve been in power, we’ve seen the overdose death rates go up to the highest levels ever in the history of this province.

You know, when you see results getting worse every year, to continue doing more of the same approach is not going to get you different results. This is why we’re so concerned and we’re echoing what we’re hearing from medical specialists whose entire careers are built around working with those struggling with addictions.

Many of those experienced addiction specialist physicians have voiced a lot of concerns to me about the remarkable similarities between the government’s current approach of publicly supplied addictive drugs and the Oxy­Contin crisis that we just went through in North America.

I don’t need to remind this Premier that at Purdue Phar­ma, their entire approach was over-prescription of opioids by minimizing the dangers of diversion. They were incentivizing doctors to provide more opioids, arguing that these were safe drugs, very similar to the language we hear out of this government when they call it safe supply. I refuse to use the term because it’s publicly supplied addictive drugs.

[1:15 p.m.]

We saw what happened across North America: an entire generation of people becoming addicted to opioids and OxyContin, yet the government response to that is to say: “Our approach is going to be doing exactly the same thing: prescribing highly dangerous, publicly supplied addictive drugs to an already struggling population that are struggling with addictions.” I would just like the Premier to explain how his current approach in government differs from that of Purdue pharmacy.

Hon. D. Eby: I certainly am familiar with Purdue Phar­ma. It was our government that initiated Canadian class action litigation by provinces across the country to recover health care costs related to the overdose crisis that was driven by their marketing activities.

We, thanks to fast action after being sworn in as government, made the largest health care costs recovery in the province’s history from Purdue Pharma. If we had not acted, there wouldn’t have been $1 for British Columbia from that company for their activities. I agree with the member, and I saw the member’s support on social media for that kind of approach. He wasn’t aware that we had already done it.

The second piece is around enforcement. It is critically important that the people who are profiting from the misery…. It doesn’t matter if they’re organized companies like Purdue Pharma and the other companies we’re still pursuing in court or organized crime; we are pursuing them aggressively.

In just the last six-month period, one seizure of precur­sor chemicals capable of producing 525 kilograms of fentanyl, over 150 kilograms of MDMA. That’s 262 million potentially lethal doses of fentanyl and three million doses of MDMA. Also, one million pills of various kinds, seized by the RCMP, resulted in six people arrested.

Another one: an 18-month-long investigation, five ar­rests, multiple seizures, 52 kilograms of methamphet­amine, 30 kilograms of psilocybin, three kilograms of cocaine, 1.2 kilograms of heroin, and more.

[1:20 p.m.]

Another year-long investigation: $3 million in drugs as well as guns and cash, including 72 kilograms of fentanyl-laced fake Percocet pills, 16.5 kilograms of cutting agents, meth, MDMA and benzodiazepines, $123,000 in cash. It resulted in three arrests.

In this legislative session, we passed new laws that allow us to seize the assets of organized criminals that are not able to explain where they get their money from through unexplained wealth orders. I very much look forward to the police and the civil forfeiture office using those tools to crack down on people profiting from mis­ery in our communities.

It’s important to recognize that the prescribed safer supply work is overseen by physicians who are expert in the area, including those doctors that the member was just talking about at St. Paul’s that are experts in addiction. The preliminary findings are showing a 76 percent decrease in mortality. The research continues. The work continues on this.

The member asks: how is what we are doing different from what was happening with Purdue Pharma when they were actively promoting opioids to people who were not using them? The people who are getting the prescriptions have serious opioid addictions. The prescription comes from a nurse or a doctor that is an expert in addiction. We’re trying to separate them from the criminal gangs, trying to separate them from the toxic street drugs, which I just ran down the list of, that organized crime is profiting from.

Profoundly ironically, this is exactly what the member stood up in this place literally yesterday and told us that he did when he was the Minister of Health. He said: “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.” The one thing I would add to that is to keep them alive so they can get into treatment.

Since coming into government, during the global pandemic, with the closure of the borders, we have seen a mas­sive spike in the toxicity of the drugs that are coming into British Columbia. They’re smaller. They’re easier to ship. They’re also profoundly strong and toxic, and they are killing people.

This effort is also about keeping people alive so they can get into treatment. We have literally $1 billion in the budget to expand that treatment work, doubling youth treat­ment beds across the province, making a real impact for people struggling with addiction.

I take the member’s core point, which is: more work to do. We need to continue to monitor this work to ensure that we’re headed in the right direction.

K. Falcon: It would be appreciated if the Premier could shorten his answers. I know he’s taking 15 minutes before he even stands up to answer basic questions. Then, I realize, he’s trying to rag the puck, so to speak, so that he doesn’t have to get asked hard questions. But if we’re going to get through to where we can canvass a number of issues, it would be helpful if the Premier kept his questions relevant.

I would remind the Premier — he repeatedly keeps read­ing that into the record — that the NAOMI and SALOME trials were controlled trials under the supervision of addiction specialists with the goal of getting people into treatment. You have a minister responsible for mental health and addictions that cannot even tell us how many addiction beds are available in the province of British Columbia today.

Frankly, the issue I asked the Premier about was that physicians are increasingly concerned the approach that resulted in the Premier and this government — by the way, which I applaud — suing Purdue pharmacy and, I believe, up to 40 other opioid manufacturers, and that saw a situation where North America–wide we had an opioid crisis. Why? Because they were pushing these drugs into the population.

The approach of this government is to provide publicly supplied addictive drugs to the population. They’re doing a very good job of it. The problem is that the hydromorphone that they’re pushing into the population is being diverted, and that’s why we’re seeing the run-up in youth representing and presenting at hospitals and doctors’ offices with opioid use disorder.

[1:25 p.m.]

I’m simply asking the Premier the question. What is the difference between you suing the opioid manufacturers, quite appropriately, for the fact that they irresponsibly allowed drugs to get through our system…? And remember, all of them prescribed by physicians. In fact, they encouraged the physicians to prescribe them. Why? Because they were safer.

That “safer” word might ring a bell with the Premier. This is the same language we’re hearing from this government. Safer supply. No, they are publicly supplied, addictive drugs that are highly toxic and dangerous. We have to be careful. I don’t mean toxic in the fact that they’re laced with fentanyl but highly dangerous to individuals taking them — five times more powerful than heroin. The concern is, as they get diverted into the broader community, which is clearly happening….

I’m just asking the question. What is the difference between the fact that you’re suing Purdue, successfully, and other manufacturers and the fact that you’re doing the exact same thing and, I would argue, opening up government to potential lawsuits in the future?

Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s advice. I’ll do my best to provide answers as quickly as I can. I think this is a critical issue. I’ll endeavour to get the member the information that he needs.

This is the Premier’s office budget estimates. The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions was available, did an extended set of estimates and had all the materials available. We’re drawing from that information to provide answers. It takes a little bit longer when it’s not squarely on the topic of the estimates. It’s not an objection. I want to answer the questions. I want to provide the information. The reason I want to provide the information is….

It’s critical that people have the facts. The member stood in this place and said something that was flatly incorrect about treatments that were available at St. Paul’s for people struggling with addiction. That kind of misinformation doesn’t help people. If you are under the belief that a particular treatment is not available…. Something the member says, in a position of authority, as the Leader of the Opposition, is probably conclusive for you about whether or not you should be seeking treatment there.

We need people to go to St. Paul’s. We need them to talk to the addictions doctors if they’re addicted to opioids, to be dealing with a physician or a nurse practitioner instead of with a street-level dealer. The drugs are incredibly toxic out there. To get that health care connection, for people struggling with addiction, is so important.

[1:30 p.m.]

The member asks, “What’s the big difference,” like he doesn’t know, like this is a parallel situation. The key difference in Purdue Pharma is that physicians were encouraged to prescribe, as painkillers, opioids to peo­ple who had never used opioids before as if it’s as safe Tylenol. You’d give the opioids to this senior struggling with chronic pain, and opioid prescriptions exploded as a result of that marketing activity.

The safer supply initiative is for people with something called opioid use disorder, which everybody else would just call addiction to opioids. You show up to your physician. You are already addicted. You are addicted to the point that you’re going out into the street, and you are finding someone who is dealing drugs. You’re buying drugs from them to feed your addiction.

Where does the money come from? Where do the drugs come from? We know. They’re not safe. The money often comes from people’s depleting savings, and then when they get really desperate, from proceeds of crime to feed their addiction. Getting that physician in between them and the predatory drug dealer putting them up to paying out money for drugs of unknown origin, unknown toxicity…. This is the program.

To pretend like the member doesn’t know that when, in fact, yesterday he stood up in this place and literally described this program and took credit for establishing this program as Minister of Health…. He said: “We had the NAOMI trials and the SALOME trials.” This was about prescribed safer supply for people with opioid use disorder to see whether you could get between those street-level drug dealers and the person with the addiction with a physician — stabilize them, maybe even get them some training and back to work, get them into treatment. I think those were great initiatives. They are the foundation on which this program is built.

For the member to now pretend, oh, he doesn’t know — “This is about providing free addictive drugs to people. What’s the difference between that and Purdue Pharma?” — when he literally ran the program for people with serious addictions to try to give them a chance to get into treatment, to stay alive, to stabilize their lives, which showed such positive results that resulted in the experts in this area recommending that we expand this approach, that we try this approach….

Now, for political reasons, to stand up, provide misinformation about what’s available at St. Paul’s, pretend he doesn’t know how the program works, use inflammatory language to pretend that government is freely distributing opioids to the general public when, in fact, it’s a prescription program through doctors and nurse practitioners trained in the area…. It’s definitely not helpful in the crisis that we’re facing.

There are hard questions to be asked. There are hard questions to be answered. I’m committed to providing those answers as best I can to the member about this profoundly challenging issue.

Now, he continues to repeat that we have seen an explosion in addictions around young people in the province. I asked the ministry for their best advice on this.

What I got back was that the number of youth under the age of 19 with the new diagnosis of opioid use disorder has been flat, low and stable over the past decade. There was no significant increase in OUD, opioid use disorder, or addiction to opioids, diagnoses among youth under 19 after March 2020, which was the date of the implementation of this program.

The number of youth 19 to 24 with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder has been declining since 2016. There was no change in this general trend after March 2020 when the program started.

Now, there is a very troubling statistic, though, about young people. It’s that we have been seeing, consistent with the population generally, an increase in toxic drug deaths among young people, and I have talked about that — young people who are going out. They think they’re doing a drug like Ecstasy or something. They’re at a party. They think this is a good idea. They make that one fatal mistake, and they get a drug that they weren’t expecting, and they die of a fentanyl overdose.

Fentanyl was detected in 80 percent of unregulated drug deaths among under-19-year-olds since July 2020. Stimulants and benzodiazepines were the next commonly detected substances at 52 percent and 50 percent, respectively. I think we’re all troubled by that. I hope we’re all troubled by that.

[1:35 p.m.]

We continue to monitor, and the best information the ministry can provide me is that addictions have not been increasing in this group, despite the member continually repeating that.

We’re doing the research to track these things. We will continue to provide this House and the public with the evidence as we get it. That is the responsible approach. If we see unintended consequences, if we see things we don’t want to see, then we’ll take action to address those issues.

K. Falcon: Important to note, Premier, that although we had those very controlled trials, we did not plunge ahead with a publicly supplied addictive drug program like this government has.

While this Premier can pretend, and apparently wants to pretend, that there are going to be no unintended consequences, I’m here to tell him right now and make the prediction that there will be exactly the unintended consequences that they’re not prepared for, just as there were unintended consequences when Purdue pharmacy and the other pharmaceutical companies went ahead with their pushing of medical opioids into the North American population, creating a North America–wide pandemic of misery and addiction and death as a result of their program.

I would also say, just referring back to…. He wants to, apparently, completely deny that, apparently, physicians at St. Paul’s, he’s saying, are not not prescribing. We’ve received confirmation again that there are physicians there that have stopped prescribing hydromorphone because of their concerns. I’ll state that for the record.

The other thing I would let the Premier know is that there are children and youth who have never used drugs before that are now being sold diverted hydromorphone. And guess what they’re calling it to the kids. Safe supply. “Don’t worry; these are government drugs; it’s safe,” even though it’s five times more dangerous than heroin. That is what’s happening in the real world out there.

Part of this, again, is the government’s approach. We know the government has also got drug vending machines now in the downtown of Vancouver and in the Downtown Eastside. The lack of proper controls has meant these government-sanctioned narcotic vending machines are causing, again, more diversion into the broader community and creating an addiction crisis amongst youth. People working in the recovery sector, the people that are actually treating people that are struggling with addictions, have confirmed that children as young as 16 and 17 years old are accessing these drugs.

Will the Premier make sure that there are proper controls so that we’re not seeing the diversion of those highly addictive drugs like hydromorphone into the broader community of children and youth at 16 and 17?

[1:40 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I apologize to the member. It took some time to track down the program he was referring to.

He was referring to a vending machine. Unsurprisingly, it’s not a vending machine. This is a device that dispenses a single dose of prescribed supply. It requires biometric identifiers in order to be able to access it. A vending ma­chine is where you put money in and get something out. This requires the specific person that has been prescribed to be there with biometric identifiers, and a single dose is supplied.

It’s a Health Canada program run by Dr. Mark Tyndall, under a direct exemption with Health Canada, the federal program. It’s not a provincial program.

[1:50 p.m.]

It’s actually intended as an anti-diversion approach, because instead of giving someone a whole bottle of pills in their safer supply prescription, they are given a dose at a time each day, which is intended to reduce the risk of diversion. Now, this program is also subject to monitoring and research by Health Canada to determine if it is, in fact, effective at reducing diversion.

I do want to address a couple of additional comments made by the member and another member in the House. Earlier today, in question period, the member for Surrey South said: “The fact is the rapid access addiction clinic at St. Paul’s Hospital stopped prescribing hydromorphone last February because they see more kids getting addicted.”

Then, the Leader of the Opposition, before lunch, said: “To reinforce that, St. Paul’s Hospital, in their rapid-access addiction clinic — a clinic that is staffed by some of the top addiction specialists in the province — actually stopped prescribing hydromorphone two months ago, in February of this year.”

Two members saying it. This is not a mistake or a slip of the tongue. They have been saying this, and it is incorrect.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member said, “No, I didn’t; I didn’t say that.”

Some doctors stopped prescribing. Physicians are going to make decisions about what’s best for different classes of patients that they’re seeing. They do that autonomously from government, and they should do that; they should make those decisions. But to say the rapid-access clinic, staffed by some of the top addiction specialists in the province, stopped prescribing hydromorphone two months ago, in February of this year is simply incorrect.

That kind of misinformation about medical programs responding to the opioid overdose crisis is profoundly counterproductive and irresponsible. It is a pattern of this member’s assertions about safer supply, about his party’s support for it to date — consistently, at all-party committees and at votes in the Legislature — and now they want to have it both ways:

“We support it, but we don’t support it. Yeah, I ran SALOME and NAOMI, but I didn’t support them. I didn’t support the idea of giving people prescriptions. That’s why we didn’t expand it. I’m proud of it, but I didn’t think it was a good idea.” Inconsistent, contradictions, falling over themselves because they have a political problem.

The political problem is that there’s a party that is clearly opposed to this, the Conservative Party, and they want to have it all. They want to say to some audiences: “We’re op­posed.” They want to say to other audiences, “We’re in favour,” depending on which room they’re in.

Leadership requires saying this is a hard issue. We’re trying to keep people alive here. These are people with serious addictions to opioids. We’re trying to get a physician between them and a street-level dealer, to keep them alive so that they can get into treatment — exactly the intention of the programs run when the member himself was the Health Minister and said in this House that he ran those programs, for those same reasons, and showed those same results, as a matter of fact. Now he finds it politically inconvenient to have that history.

The despicable comparison…. Purdue Pharma, to make money, took people struggling with chronic pain, told their doctors that opioids were as safe as Tylenol — that they should prescribe them freely and that there was no risk of addiction — and hooked hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people with this terrible advice. It’s advice they knew was wrong, advice that they and their advisers at McKinsey cooked up in a marketing book for doctors.

Compare that with a physician or a nurse practitioner who has someone in front of them struggling with addiction, who’s going out into the street to buy drugs that could kill them and getting the money to buy those drugs God knows where and saying: “You know what? Let’s stop that activity for you. Come here. We’ll make sure that we manage that addiction that you’re struggling with. We’ll get you in touch with the system, with the supports you need. We’ll keep you alive. We’ll stop that struggle of getting the money every time to feed your addiction, and we’ll work together to help you get out of this addiction.”

[1:55 p.m.]

I mean, when you look in the eyes of a person who has lost a friend, a family member, a son or a daughter to an addiction, and they say to you, “Please try everything you can to keep this person alive,” we’re willing to do that, and we’re doing it in a way that is rigorously evaluated and monitored.

The member is either trying very hard to hide that his party repeatedly supported harm reduction, including safe supply, including himself as Health Minister, which he reminded us about in this place, in this debate…. He’s either trying to hide it or he doesn’t understand the program — it’s possible — and what the doctors are doing. Or he’s willing to look someone in the eye that has a loved one struggling with addiction and say: “You know what? I think that your loved one should go out on the street to buy drugs. They shouldn’t be dealing with a physician around accessing opioids.”

I can’t believe that’s true. I don’t be­lieve that’s true because this is the same member who ran the NAOMI and SALOME initiatives that, I think, were groundbreaking. It’s disappointing on a bunch of levels because, like during COVID, this is a public health emergency. It’s killing people. Finding ways to work forward, address issues, I think, should be non-partisan. The member is trying all he can do to make this partisan. He’s spreading misinformation in this place repeatedly. It’s just disappointing.

K. Falcon: Well I shouldn’t be surprised that the Premier continues to deceive and mislead on this issue. I’m going to straighten out the record again for the Premier, because he apparently has difficulty hearing. Make it very clear.

The NAOMI and SALOME trials were controlled trials, medically overseen, to determine whether that replacement therapy could help people get into treatment. I would encourage the Premier to read our Better Is Possible mental health and addiction plan, whereby we believe that the proper response, is to create purpose-built facilities where the primary focus of government is not publicly supplying addictive drugs but helping people get off their drugs.

This Premier’s reckless approach to not only publicly supply addictive drugs but decriminalization without the proper guardrails is not going to end well. I’ll say that right here, predict it very publicly: we’ll see the continued poor results coming forward, and the Premier is going to have to be explaining this in the weeks, months and years to come.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, in the greatest of ironies, the next group of lawsuits are not going to be to the Purdue companies of the world but actually to his own government by people that are seeing that their reckless approach is actually going to spread more damage, chaos and despair in communities, particularly among young people.

And just so that this Premier knows, we are actually getting text messages right now from physicians at St. Paul’s who are watching this, right now, confirming that, in fact, they are not, and they’re going to stop, prescribing hydromorphone — many of them, not all of them, many of them — because of the concerns that they have. The reason why we don’t put their names on the record is because they know what kind of vindictiveness this government and this Premier, in particular, have towards people that dare to speak their minds.

That’s why they’re obsessed with secrecy. That’s why they’re obsessed with making sure that everybody signs non-disclosure agreements and gag orders, whether in the health sector, whether it’s parents that just want to look after their kids with autism and stop this Premier from stripping away individualized funding or whether it’s anybody else that just wants to participate and speak truth so that we can have better public policy. It doesn’t happen, sadly, with this government and this Premier.

Before I ask my next question, I would like my colleague, the member from Abbotsford, to have an opportunity to ask a question.

Hon. D. Eby: I accept the member’s correction on the record.

He was incorrect that the clinic has stopped providing that service. As I said, individual doctors will make individual decisions that they need to make about what’s best for their patients, and we support them in that absolutely.

He also incorrectly suggested the program is not medically overseen. It is. It’s a program that is run through nurse practitioners and physicians that are specifically trained in this program.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

He incorrectly stated the government is withdrawing in­dividualized autism funding from families. That is not correct, and he knows it’s not correct.

[2:00 p.m.]

He knows it’s not correct that the clinic stopped prescribing. He knows it’s not correct that his party didn’t support safer supply or harm reduction. He knows it’s not correct that he himself didn’t actively support the NAOMI and SALOME trials, on which this work is based. He continues to provide information that is incorrect in this place.

It takes a little bit of time to get responses to the answers, because we have to go back and literally pull the transcript from just 20 minutes ago to read back the member’s own words to him so that he can remember what he said. He’s changed it. I accept the correction. I just wish he would be clearer about a matter of life and death for British Columbians.

M. de Jong: I just want to take a few moments to change gears and ask the Premier a couple of questions on behalf of another large group of British Columbians who feel let down by the government. I’m talking, of course, about the transit strike in the Fraser Valley. Now, the Premier, I expect, knows and understands how devastatingly harmful this has been for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities — folks that can’t get to their medical treatment, students that can’t get to class and seniors who can’t get out.

Now, the Premier also, I expect, understands that there are some tools available to the government. There’s a range of them. To be sure, there is a continuum of involvement. But the government has chosen to use none of those tools. The appointment of a mediator, the direction to mandatory mediation and the setting of minimal essential service levels that would address some of the worst challenges that our most vulnerable citizens are facing….

The question is a straightforward one. It has been canvassed several times in this House, but we’ve never really heard an answer, let alone a satisfactory answer. Confronted by the terrible toll this withdrawal of transit services is having upon people in a part of the province that doesn’t have a SkyTrain, and there aren’t any other options, why has the Premier’s government steadfastly refused to make use of any of the tools that exist within the labour code that might assist in ending this strike?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. I apologize for the delay. I was trying to get him the latest information on this.

My understanding of the current situation is the parties are, in fact, not talking to each other. The Minister of Labour has reached out to both parties to remind them of their responsibilities to the public — the people who need to get to and from work and to and from appointments and around their communities — that they need to be together at the bargaining table.

We know that the best and most lasting outcomes result from that collaborative work around the table together. The Minister of Labour has also reached out to offer mediation services to those parties. I strongly urge both parties to get back to the bargaining table to work out these differences.

There is a challenge here. This is operator first national and their employees. These are not direct government employees. The member will know that we’ve reached resolution with public service employees through the bargaining process. I’ll use this opportunity to say that both parties need to be back at the bargaining table.

To the member’s point about essential services, I couldn’t agree more. Government has ensured that Handy­DART services for seniors, for people with mobility challenges, have been maintained throughout this work disruption so that people can get around. I join with the member in encouraging these parties to get back to the table and to get people moving in the Fraser Valley again.

M. de Jong: Well look, I’m going to summarize, as best I can, how that re­sponse and, more importantly, the response of non-action by the government, are viewed by those people who are paying the price most directly for this labour dispute. And that is the term “lame.”

These tools exist. So the Premier says: “Well, we’re en­couraging the parties to talk. We’ve offered a mediator.” The government can do more than that. The government can insist that the parties sit down with a mediator. The government can order a fact-finder under the labour code to probe, specifically, what the issues are.

The Premier and the government and the Labour Minister have essentially said, “We’re not going to get involved because we want to preserve the sanctity of the collective bargaining process between the two parties,” which, of course, thus far has produced nothing and, at the moment, not even talks.

The application of that principle seems fairly selective. Preserving the integrity of the collective bargaining process and the right of the parties to choose certainly didn’t reveal itself in Bill 5, when there seemed to be another agenda at play on the part of the government.

[2:10 p.m.]

The Premier can stand in the House and say to the peo­ple of the Fraser Valley, who have been denied now for weeks and weeks and months access to transit services, that, well, there is a measure of essential services. I just want the Premier to know that for seniors who are trying to access cancer care and preliminary medical treatments related to that cancer care, they don’t get access to handyDART because it’s not considered an emergency.

The government has at its disposal the means to ensure (1) that people facing these critically important health-related needs can have access. It has chosen not to do so. The government has at its disposal the tools to insist that the parties sit down and begin to negotiate and address these issues. It is the Premier and the government who have chosen not to make use of those tools.

Thirdly, and my next question will relate to this specifically, I have discovered, on the basis of people coming into the constituency office, that for those most vulnerable citizens who are receiving a disability pension, seniors who are receiving social assistance of some kind, in many cases, they have a portion of their support cheques deducted — I think it’s in the neighbourhood of $52 — for a transit pass. Well, the problem is that the government continues to deduct that amount.

So the government not only is not utilizing any of the tools at its disposal to try and encourage a settlement, with the strike ongoing and no transit services available, but apparently the government continues to deduct money from our most vulnerable citizens to pay for a service that doesn’t even exist anymore.

Is the Premier prepared to tell the House and commit to the House that that practice, at least, will come to an end and protect our most vulnerable citizens from what is an unconscionable, to my mind, move on the part of the government?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: My apologies to the member for the delay. I wanted to get him as concrete an answer as possible.

My understanding of the issue is that he is correct. There is a transit pass deduction from disability. Disability assistance recipients have the ability, before the fifth of the month, to opt for cash or a bus pass. The member will re­member that we had some debates back and forth about bus passes when we were sitting on that side of the House. We changed the policy when we came over here. But at the core of it, the member is right.

I think if you’re living with a disability, and you’ve got a lot going on in your life, the last thing you’re thinking about is, before the fifth of the month, to notify somebody to get the cash instead of the bus pass.

We’ve reached out to the Ministry of Social Development. They advised that they are alive to this issue. In fact, they’ve been working on it and will be transitioning people to cash instead of transit pass deduction should the strike continue. I thank the member for drawing the issue to my attention.

The second piece is around the definition of essential services — which services are covered, and which aren’t. These are determined by the Labour Board, not by government. We’re just tracking down….

We’ve provided B.C. Cancer with $800 million, which includes money for patient transportation, so for the mem­ber’s constituents that do have oncology appointments they need to get to, treatments, and so on, we’ll see whether that B.C. Cancer support can provide that. I’ll provide that answer later on in this session.

[2:20 p.m.]

In addition, we understand that the essential services agreement is just that, between the employees and the employer. We may be able to address this cancer issue, as well, through that agreement. We’ll ask Labour to have a look at that.

Thank you to the member for bringing forward these issues from his constituents.

K. Falcon: I’m going to return to the subject of housing and remind the viewing audience…. A couple of the signature platform commitments made by this NDP government back in their 2017 election campaign were (1) to make housing more affordable and (2) to have government build 114,000 units of affordable housing within a ten-year period. That would be over 11,000 units a year.

Now, I must tell you, for the record, that those of us that were in the private sector at that point, especially people in the housing sector, did a collective guffaw at that particular commitment, knowing full well that even the largest residential builders in the private sector might build 1,500 to 2,000 units in a year. It was laughable to think that government was somehow going to pole-vault past all of them and be able to do over 11,000 units a year.

What are the actual results? We’re two terms into this government, six years with an NDP government, including the current Premier, who was the Minister Responsible for Housing prior to becoming the Premier. Well, we’ve ended up with the highest housing prices in North America, the third highest on the planet. We’ve ended up with the highest average rents in the entire country of Canada, right here in British Columbia.

I know the Premier will try to chew up time by talking about…. “We did this program. We did that. We’re spending this much money here and that much money there.” These are the cold, hard, indisputable facts and results of where British Columbians find themselves today: staring right in the face of the highest prices in North America and the highest average rents in Canada.

Now, I would argue that the reason this came about was because the Premier and the NDP government built their entire housing plan on a total misunderstanding of the market. I want to take us back to 2015, when this Premier authored a thoroughly discredited study with Andy Yan that said that the reason we have high housing prices is because of Chinese foreign buyers. He based that on the fact…. They looked at 172 homes on the west side of Vancouver and said: “Oh gee, 135 of those have non-anglicized last names. Therefore, that must mean that they are foreign Chinese buyers.”

That report was thoroughly discredited by virtually everybody, including Judge Cullen, who pointed out that there was no link between foreign buyers and housing prices. But it caused a profound rise in anti-Asian senti­ment in the province of British Columbia, to the point where, sadly, the city of Vancouver earned the title as the anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America, with hate crime incidents growing by up to 600 percent.

It would be no surprise…. This Premier, in trying to take a thoroughly discredited approach like that, created a huge amount of fear in the broader community by people that believed: “Oh, I get it. Then, I guess, the whole housing crisis is because of Chinese foreign buyers.”

That was never the case. The evidence has clearly substantiated that that was not the case. In fact, his partner in that discredited study made it very clear that he initiated this at the Premier’s, then an opposition MLA, request.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Premier responded at the time, in a Globe and Mail article of November 2, 2015, with what, frankly, I think is a pretty cowardly response. “I can’t recall where his study originated from.” Well, he made it very clear where it originated from. It originated from the Premier.

I guess my question is a pretty simple one. Will the Premier apologize to the Asian community for this very discredited study, which has caused a huge run-up in anti-Asian racism in the province?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the difference between the Leader of the Opposition and his party and our party is…. We believe the government needs to be involved directly in the housing market, including building housing.

[2:30 p.m.]

He may have laughed when he heard that we were going to work with non-profits, Indigenous groups, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector to build 114,000 units of housing, but we’re well on our way.

We’ve got over 42,000 homes that are complete, that are developed and made available to people right now. That’s a combination of different programs. In total, right now over 74,000 homes are either complete, under construction or funded and in the development initiation stage with local governments — 74,000 homes. And we are on track to 114,000-unit goal.

I think that British Columbians want governments that shoot high, that set aspirational goals and work with partners to deliver them, and that’s what we’re going to do.

Now, the member says that there was a misunderstanding about what was driving the housing market back in the day and that that misunderstanding came from me. I’ll say this: I am not afraid to take action on housing affordability. That includes advocating for the speculation tax, which our government delivered, and supporting the foreign buyer tax and expanding the foreign buyer tax.

We’ll be introducing, in the fall session, a flipping tax to go after those people who buy a home for a short period of time and then flip it to make money. Families, individuals should not be competing with short-term speculators in order to be able to buy a place for themselves to live.

I’m going to walk the member through the history of this important issue, as he seems to have forgotten some key pieces of what was happening in the 2015 period. May 2015. This is me talking to the then Minister of Housing, Rich Coleman. This is me:

“All I’m suggesting is that it would be greatly worthwhile…to measure the impact of foreign investors, if any, on the B.C. real estate market.

“…this is very closely tied with an unfortunate history that we have, certainly in Vancouver, of anti-Asian racism…. We need to be careful, and we need evidence about what impact, if any, the international investor class has.

“Clearly, there is a lot of concern about this in my community, and people need to know whether their concern is overblown or whether it’s legitimate.

“Again, to the minister,” will he measure “what’s happening in terms of international and perhaps even domestic investors in property who don’t live in the units and are simply holding them as investments?”

The Housing Minister responded to me unequivocally. He said: “There is no plan at this time to go and do what the member is asking. We have not had any request to go and do this work,” despite the request he had just received. “There’s no initiative at this time in government to go and interfere in the marketplace with regards to housing. There is no initiative or research that we’re doing from this ministry with regards to that.”

Shortly after that, in July of 2015, a young woman named Evelyn Sha, herself of Chinese descent, started the hashtag #giveusthedata in protest. Again, the Housing Minister responded that there was no need to collect data: “We worked with the real estate guys for years and have got data on sales.” This is the context in which a number of academics began research to try to determine what was happening in the housing market, given the total unwillingness of the then government to even look at the issue. And that included Andy Yan.

The pressure built and built until, finally, the Liberal government agreed to measure the data. They got the numbers back, and they were shocked: 13.2 percent of the sales in Metro Vancouver were going to international buyers — 13.2 percent. Previous, the highest estimate they had given was probably in the neighbourhood of 3 percent. So this was more than four times what they thought was happening in the market, when they finally started collecting the data. The net value of those transactions: $1 billion.

[2:35 p.m.]

In announcing this remarkable data, the member for Abbotsford West stood up and told media: “We know, with certainty, there are foreign nationals from countries around the world purchasing residential properties in B.C. We know that as a fact now and are beginning to be able to quantify that. We know, at the head of that pack, the largest group — certainly for the period we studied — was from China.”

The member for Abbotsford West made that announcement as a senior minister of the B.C. Liberal government. This led to an emergency session where the then B.C. Liberal government scrambled to get ahead of an issue that they had ignored despite repeated questioning.

July 25, 2016, then Premier Christy Clark, in the Vancouver Sun: “There is evidence now that suggests that very wealthy foreign buyers have raised the price, the overall price of housing for people in British Columbia. If we are going to put British Columbians first, and that is what we’re intending to do, we need to make sure that we do everything we can to try and keep houses affordable and to try and make sure that those very wealthy foreign buyers find it a little bit harder to buy a house in the greater Vancouver area.”

They introduced a bill to implement the foreign buyer tax, July 26, 2016. In this place, the member for Richmond North Centre, who still sits here…. From Hansard, the member said: “A property transfer tax on foreign nationals purchasing property in Metro Vancouver will help slow demand from abroad and ensure that our province’s cities are not simply another product for financial speculation but a place where people may live and raise their families.” In the same speech, that member said that she believed Chinese Canadian families supported the government’s data collection and the foreign buyer tax. I believe the same.

The B.C. Liberal Party was so committed to this that, in their 2020 platform, they included the following: if they were elected, which they weren’t, but if they were elected, they would “implement higher property taxes for non-residents of Canada to help prevent inflation of housing prices caused by foreign investors.” That is literally from their platform. I wonder if the member will apologize for misleading this House.

K. Falcon: That’s an unbelievable response, and it’s so incredibly disrespectful to an entire community that has had to live with the repercussions of decisions he made to bring forward a totally discredited, flawed so-called study of 172 homes on the west side of Vancouver, in which 135 non-anglicized names were his example of how he’s being careful. Well it’s not careful. It’s racist, and trying to blame Rich Coleman for those kind of racist dog-whistle policies is the worst excuse imaginable.

When you couple that with the other wild allegations we know he made during the so-called Chinese money laundering scandal, that was the other area in which this then Attorney General amped up a lot of rhetoric that hurt this community…. The question I was asking the Premier was a pretty straightforward question.

Knowing that Vancouver has now been named the anti-Asian capital of North America, knowing that it’s terrible that the Asian community has seen a 600 percent increase in racist attacks and racist comments, knowing that when the Human Rights Commission looked at the anti-racist reviews that have been undertaken and noted that real estate was one of the common themes that would come up, knowing that he was the one that pushed this entire discredited survey out into the public to create the mischaracterization of an entire community that has been an absolute pillar of the building of the province of British Columbia, could he not do the right thing on the record and apologize to that community for the fact that that thoroughly discredited study…?

Discredited, by the way, by everyone — I could read through the list — including Judge Cullen.

[2:40 p.m.]

Could he not stand up and do the right thing and apologize to the Asian community for the harms he has caused by putting out that thoroughly discredited so-called study in 2015?

Hon. D. Eby: The debate has reached various levels. We’ve had straight-up questions. I hope I’ve given my best straight-up answers to the member. We’ve had political questions. On occasion, I’ll admit delving into politics in some of my responses, always with a measure of personal respect for the role of the opposition and the role that all of us have in this House.

It’s a pretty serious charge to call someone racist in this place, especially given the history of this place. Let me say and express disappointment that the member has decided to take this debate in that direction.

This is a time in the world and in politics where people are driving racist divides for their own political advantage. Our government has….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Exactly right.

This issue of international money in our housing market, the issue of money laundering…. These are important things for us to talk about and address. It’s hard to do in a province that has such a history of racism. We need to deal with these issues, though.

The rise in anti-Asian racism, which we saw during the pandemic, in particular, when the President of the United States was literally calling it “the China virus”…. We saw that wash into British Columbia — attacks on people of Asian descent in our province. We stood together in this place to oppose it.

Our government brought the Human Rights Commissioner back and established it, as I recall, with a vote of…. Every member in this House voted in support of the new legislation to bring the Human Rights Commissioner back. A recognition, I think, that being the only province without a Human Rights Commissioner, especially given the challenges of racism in our province, was not the right thing. Those moments of solidarity and standing together against racism are critically important.

Frankly, these difficult issues deserve more than empty personal attacks. That’s all I’ll say about that.

[2:45 p.m.]

The rise in anti-Asian racism that we saw during the pan­demic is obviously unacceptable. Government took action. I want to assure members.

Among other things, this government is funding a new Chinese Canadian Museum in Chinatown. We believe strongly, and I’m sure we have the support of the opposition in this, that education about the critical role of Chi­nese Canadians in the history of this province, the longtime role of building this province, and letting people know about that, see that history at the storytelling centre, at the new Chinese Canadian Museum, is an essential part of fighting racism. We funded anti-Asian racism projects for multiculturalism grant programs.

Now, it’s important to note…. It doesn’t matter if you’re Chinese or not Chinese. If you’re Asian appearing in British Columbia, you can be subject to these vicious racist attacks.

The Japanese-Canadian community, as well, is a community we’ve partnered with to recognize, again, our terrible history with that community, with the incarceration of more than 22,000 Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, to build a new home, in partnership with them, for Japanese elders in the community, educational work with them and, ultimately, a new monument here to recognize that horrible moment in our history.

We have a K-to-12 anti-racism action plan for kids in school. This is the chance for us to reach out and really provide that base understanding that British Columbia is an open and welcoming province and that our diversity is, in fact, our strength with young people.

We have a network across the province to respond to racist attacks that we fund.

I’ll just read a quote, again, from myself. The member heard the quote, from Hansard, about the proposal to track international buyers. This is about money laundering.

Peter German, of course, was the former police officer, senior RCMP officer, that did the review into money laundering in British Columbia casinos.

“Anyone who uses the German report to legitimize anti-Chinese sentiment is intentionally distorting the findings in order to perpetuate racist attacks….

“Dr. German’s report has made it quite clear the money-laundering problem in Lower Mainland casinos is connected to local organized crime. Before we point our finger at anyone else, we must work on issues such as demand for drugs here in B.C. and ensure we have the necessary law enforcement response to white-collar crime and money laundering.”

I said that in October 2018, at the time the report came out.

The problem with these kinds of deeply personal and, frankly, slanderous attacks is that they can shut down discussion about important issues. One of those issues is the speculation and vacancy tax and the foreign buyer tax, which was brought in by the previous administration. I wonder if the member supports the foreign buyer tax or whether he would repeal it.

Nine times the Leader of the Opposition has opposed the speculation and vacancy tax, standing up for people who own a second or a third empty home.

“We’ve got to be careful not to just demonize people that own a condominium or a second place, or third, or whatever the case may be.” That’s the Kelowna Daybreak South.

“These are people that have a second property, and they’re being forced to pay an additional cost.” That’s the Darpan in April of this year.

“What this speculation tax is…. It is a tax on people that own second homes.”

“The speculation tax actually refers to people who own second properties. So lots of British Columbians will own a cabin at the lake or maybe a second investment condo or something like that.”

“I’m talking about all the taxes they introduced — the speculation tax, the vacancy tax, all the new taxes on vacant land.”

On and on and on. The member opposes the speculation and vacancy tax.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s important to be clear what this tax does. We recognize that our population is growing really quickly in this province. That’s good news. The record-setting number of people choosing to move here from other provinces and from other countries need somewhere to live.

If you own a home in a speculation tax area — this is a city with a very low vacancy rate — and you’re keeping it empty…. We’re working really hard to get housing built. We have a 650 percent increase in purpose-built rental housing, with 14,546 completed last year; housing starts at a record high, up 70 percent since the opposition leader was Finance Minister; housing completions up 50 percent over the same time period. We’re working hard to get that housing open to address the needs of all these folks who are moving to British Columbia.

Leaving a place vacant as an investment in one of these cities where people can’t find housing: that has external costs. It drives homelessness. It drives rent unaffordability. So putting a tax on that activity to discourage it is the right thing to do. I understand that the member opposes that. I understand now that he opposes, potentially, the foreign buyer tax as well.

These are important but challenging housing issues. We need for the people who are coming to British Columbia to take advantage of the opportunities we have here…. A record low unemployment rate; 20,000 jobs created already so far this year. They see opportunity in this province. We need housing for them.

To hear the member oppose not just the demand-side measures that our government has put in place but also the supply-side measures, to vote against the housing targets for local governments, to speak out against the idea that you should be able to build a small multi-unit home without a bunch of red tape from the local government, to oppose those kinds of measures…. The member is part of the official opposition, but surely he recognizes that there are some things we should do to address the housing crisis, to support families looking for a place to live.

K. Falcon: I’ll end this point by reminding the Premier that it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. We all have a responsibility to choose our words carefully in this House. We have a particular responsibility when we know those words or actions or studies or whatever the case may be can have real ramifications.

When you see so clearly that right here in the city of Vancouver and right across the province, but particularly in the city of Vancouver…. When the incidents of anti-Asian racism are the highest in North America, then clearly it is never the wrong time to say: “I’m sorry.” That probably wasn’t a good idea to release a study that was flawed completely and may have sent the wrong message, which spiked anti-Asian racism to Asian-Canadians, who have been the builders of the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

K. Falcon: I want to, Premier, talk about your specific budget. I’d ask the Premier to please be respectful and shorten his answers. I know he wants to put a lot of information out there and try and pretend that they’re doing all these great things, but I’d prefer it if the Premier would answer the questions so that we can actually canvass some important information that the public would like to know about.

Interjection.

K. Falcon: Is there an echo in here?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: The member from Powell River apparently wants to continue talking while we’re trying to ask questions. I would ask the member to be respectful.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: I want to talk about the Premier’s budget. I announced that I was leaving government back in 2012. I note the Premier’s budget since 2016-2017 has increased by 78 percent.

That’s pretty remarkable considering they’ve increased the Premier’s budget in the Premier’s office by 78 percent, yet we’re getting the worst results we’ve ever seen in housing. We’re getting the worst results we’ve ever seen in crime and social disorder and chaos as a result of his soft-on-crime policies and his catch-and-release system. We’re getting the worst possible results we’ve ever seen in terms of mental health and addictions. And we’re getting the worst results we’ve ever seen in the health care sector. Yet the budget has gone up 78 percent.

[2:55 p.m.]

Despite the fact that we’ve already added a new, massive increase in the bureaucracy, almost a third in the six years that the Premier’s government has been in power, he still felt it necessary to invite new consultants, with four special advisers.

I have a simple question of the Premier. It should be information he has readily available. What are the payment details and hourly rates for his special advisers Doug White, Penny Ballem, Lisa Helps and Craig Jones?

N. Simons: It’s an honour and privilege to welcome to the chamber….

The Chair: Could you seek leave, please?

N. Simons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: Yes. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy is the MLA whose students from Talmud Torah school are here visiting. I just want to make sure that everybody here gives them a nice, warm welcome.

Welcome to Victoria.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The member suggested that the Premier’s office’s budget has grown dramatically.

In 2009, Gordon Campbell’s Premier’s office budget was higher than the current office budget in today’s dollars. At the time, $14.1 million; in today’s dollars, $19.4 million. The source is the Bank of Canada inflation calculator. Of course, our current office budget is $16.045 million, as I read at the beginning of the motion, about $3½ million less than the 2008-09 year.

The Premier’s office budget also compares favourably to other major provinces. Ontario’s Premier’s office budget is $57½ million, Quebec’s is $50.3 million, Al­berta’s is $34.6 million and B.C.’s is $16.045 million. We’re actually closer to Nova Scotia’s budget than Alberta’s in terms of overall cost.

[3:00 p.m.]

The member is correct. I feel very fortunate to have ex­perts in a number of different areas assisting government, especially on cross-ministry responsibilities.

There is one person the member included in the list who is retained, actually, through the legal services branch, lawyer Craig Jones. As a result…. We are unable to disclose the terms of his retainer. We don’t disclose LSB retainers. That is a practice that was in place under the previous admin­istration and that continues today. It is a matter of solicitor-client privilege.

Doug White is on a one-year contract with the Premier’s office, with a maximum cost of $275,000.

Dr. Penny Ballem is on a one-year contract with the Premier’s office at a cost of $170,000.

Ms. Lisa Helps is on a six-month contract with the Premier’s office at a cost of $85,000. That breaks down to $80,000 for compensation and $5,000 for travel.

K. Falcon: The Premier again tries to conflate other prov­inces’ budgets, in the Premier’s office, with his own. Of course, it’s not an apples to apples comparison. Many of those other offices include in their budget vote the Lieutenant-Governor’s office expenses, etc., which we do not here.

I would remind the Premier…. The Office of the Premier budget, in 2012, was $9 million. Salaries and benefits only increased 1.5 percent in the last five years of the previous B.C. Liberal government, from 2012 to 2017. The Premier can check that. Those are actual numbers. Just to make sure we get things accurate on the record here.

The Premier has made a decision to appoint Penny Ballem as a part-time adviser to health care, as he mentioned, at a cost of $170,000. Yet we’ve seen absolutely no, not just any improvement in the health care system…. We’re now experiencing the worst health care outcomes in the country.

Can the Premier please justify why he’s spending $165,000 to add yet another layer of health care bureaucracy?

Hon. D. Eby: If we might just have two minutes and return to the chamber, while my staff are checking for the answer. Thank you.

The Chair: We will recess for two minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:03 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We’re on Vote 11, the Office of the Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked about Dr. Ballem. I think British Columbians will know her best as standing up the largest vaccination program in our province’s history, in record time, leading to exceptional results for British Columbia, including compared with provinces across Canada. She is a force. Anyone who has had the opportunity to work with her would immediately understand why I was so thrilled that she agreed to stay on and continue working with government on the health file.

In fact, we have an exceptional health team. Our Minister of Health is exceptional. His deputy minister, Stephen Brown, is recognized as a leader in Canada. Dr. Bonnie Henry is holding down the public health file still, making sure that British Columbians are looked after. From the public health side of things, we have an exceptional team, and Dr. Ballem is part of that.

Dr. Ballem is working on cancer care, working with the ministry and B.C. Cancer on finalizing the cancer strategy and its approval and rollout by government, including the $800 million B.C. Cancer used to recruit oncologists and support people that need transportation to cancer care through B.C. Cancer, clinical trials of new cancer drugs, the research that those oncologists are going to do. Remarkable work. We’re going to do everything we can, everything and anything, to support British Columbians struggling with cancer. Dr. Ballem has taken this as a lead file.

On primary care, she is assisting in the implementation of the new agreement with family physicians. We are already seeing impressive results from her support to the Ministry of Health. I think it has been about three months since we signed that deal with the Doctors of B.C. We now have 482 more family doctors who are under the new payment model, who were not previously billing under the family practice codes. These are 482 doctors we brought off the sidelines and into family practice.

That’s great news for British Columbians looking for a family doctor. More work to do but a really positive start.

[3:10 p.m.]

Also, nurses. The work of the Ministry of Health — Stephen, the minister; the College of Nurses. The progress we’re seeing in recruiting the nurses we desperately need in our health care system. A new deal with the nurses where we’re going to be working together and in line to deliver additional nurse support in hospitals.

A 6.7 percent increase in nurses in B.C. in 2022. When we compare that to other jurisdictions, Alberta saw a 1 percent decline, and Ontario saw just a 1.7 percent in­crease. We saw a 6.7 percent increase.

The changes to the new streamlined pathway for internationally trained nurses is paying huge dividends. B.C. is the destination of choice for internationally trained nurses.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail a couple of days ago; 2,800 internationally trained nurses are already going through this pathway. You’ll remember that we pay for their costs to go through this, so they have to commit to working in British Columbia — 2,800 internationally trained nurses. It’s wonderful news and great news for those health care workers that are tired, that gave their all during the pandemic, and we’re asking them to give even more as our population grows and demand and strain continues in our health care system.

She’s also working with B.C. emergency health services around the ambulance services in rural and remote communities, continuing that critically important work for Brit­ish Columbians.

Definitely, I agree with the member. The health care system is under strain. We have massive population growth. COVID took a huge toll. But we are seeing very positive impacts of the changes we put in place, the new agreements, the new systems, the 602 new nursing seats across B.C., the integrated health human resource strategy, new cancer care action plan, and so much more.

I look forward to talking more about all the work we’re doing on health to improve care for British Columbians.

K. Falcon: That was an interesting overview of all the things that apparently Penny Ballem has accomplished. It makes me question why, indeed, do we then have a minister? Apparently, the minister needs a supervisor, because we already know we’ve got a Health Minister who has a political office staff of six, including — bizarrely, because I was in government for 12 years and never saw this — two chiefs of staff. I’m not sure why you have two chiefs of staff and a budget of $1.158 million.

There are also two parliamentary secretaries for Health, a deputy minister and, of course, the deputy minister’s staff of 31. Of course, you’ve got the Ministry of Health. You’ve got five health authorities, the Provincial Health Services Authority as the sixth.

All this administration and the special adviser, what kind of results have we got? Well, today, ironically, the Doctors of B.C. put out a statement saying that all of the hospitals are in shambles right now. We’ve got the Langley Memorial Hospital saying: “Don’t even bring patients here; we’re so concerned.” Now the Doctors of B.C. are saying: “Well, that situation in Langley Memorial is actually reflected right across the province.”

Our cancer care has gone from the very best in North America, when I was proud to be the Health Minister, to among the worst in the country today. One is left…. I’m sure the public would ask themselves: what on earth is this special adviser adding that we already haven’t got, apparently, with his Minister of Health, who’s supposed to be doing such a great job?

Well, it’s just a total dissonance from what the public is actually seeing out there. That’s not me saying that. That’s just the facts that we know are out there, that we see every day and hear every day from our friends and neighbours.

I note he’s also hired Lisa Helps to advise on the record of the government in housing. Now we know it’s the worst in North America. We know the rents are the highest in Canada. But his selection is interesting to me, somebody with absolutely no background in housing, none, zero, who was a mayor of Victoria and, frankly, has a very dubious record there. In fact, housing prices from the time that Lisa Helps was mayor in 2014 through to October 2022 increased by 140 percent. Average rents rose by over $500 per month during that same period of time.

[3:15 p.m.]

Could the Premier advise us what skill set this particular individual is bringing to dealing with the housing affordability situation, which has become the worst in North America under his government?

Hon. D. Eby: I am profoundly grateful for the leadership of the Minister of Health on the health file. His work is reflected in the deal with the nurses, the success we’ve had adding nurses to our hospital and the 2,800 nurses we have in the queue. With the registry, through our new, streamlined process, we’re now the jurisdiction of choice nationally for nurses to come and work to get those nurses into the hospital, supporting people right now. It’s a huge priority.

The exceptional work opening hospitals across the prov­ince in underserved communities where hospitals were long overdue: Surrey, Fort St. James, Terrace and the new St. Paul’s Hospital…. It’s critical health infrastructure that, as I say, was needed many years ago. Now we have massive population growth on infrastructure that was not only not invested for so many years, but actually it was the Leader of the Opposition who sold the land for the hospital in Surrey.

[3:20 p.m.]

I accept the core, though, that our health care system is under huge strain and needs urgent response. We’ve been doing that work. We will continue to do that work. I ran through a number of the pieces about that.

The member then went into the issue of Ms. Helps and her experience. I’m going to read a quote from someone who was talking about what the issue was, related to getting more housing supply, to respond to our massive population growth.

“We’ve got to get more supply into the market. We can’t let local government off the hook. They are a big part of the problem, and I can tell you this. I’ll make sure that local government is going to do their bit and that we get timely approval so that we get product into the marketplace, so that we offer young people and first-time buyers a real opportunity to get into the housing market, because that’s what we need.”

You know who that person was? That’s right.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says “brilliant.” That was the Leader of the Opposition who said that. Why would it be, today, that he’s surprised that I got the chair of the Urban Mayors Caucus — who, having retired from politics, knows and has relationships with municipal leaders across the province — to coordinate some of our housing work?

There are huge issues with local government. I have spoken out strongly on this issue, and we are doing work with local governments, including setting targets for them that match our population growth, targets under a new law that, of course, the opposition voted against, before they voted for it. We’re working with local governments on our new legislation we’ll be introducing in the fall, allowing people to build multiple units on a single-family lot — a small multi-unit home — without any additional red tape. Again, the Leader of the Opposition opposed that.

We recognize the permitting process, both provincially and municipally, is too slow. We’ve got to work with local governments to make sure that housing gets approved quickly so it can get built. A house sitting on a planner’s desk can’t be lived in, whether that public servant is in the provincial government or is in a municipal government somewhere.

Ms. Helps’ experience is well placed there, with her proposals around expediting approvals in the city of Victoria, increasing gentle density in that community so there were homes that people with middle incomes could actually afford, to get into the housing market. It was a leadership role among mayors. I saw her work with the Urban Mayors Caucus and how she brought people together. That is exactly what she’s doing to support the government’s housing work as we continue to respond to the urgent need of people to get a place they can afford, whether to rent or to buy.

I still struggle to understand why the opposition op­poses so many of these measures.

K. Falcon: I would remind the Premier that most of those members of the B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus got voted out of office, including the mayor’s friend that he was campaigning for in Vancouver, Kennedy Stewart, one of the most disastrous mayors the city of Vancouver has ever seen, and somebody that this Premier felt necessary to not only endorse but go out and campaign and door-knock for. Although interestingly, the polls were showing that he was going to win the race, it turned into a blowout, just as a reminder for that member.

But the other thing I would remind the Premier of is that he talked about supply into the market. You’re darn right I said that. The problem with this NDP government is that for six years, the vast majority of the time, they focused on adding costs to housing. A blizzard of new taxes. That’s the NDP world. Here’s how they think: “Let’s add a whole bunch of costs to housing. That’s going to make housing more affordable.”

Well, that’s how we ended up with the highest housing prices in North America, because only in their second term did this Premier, then the Minister Responsible for Housing, say: “Gee, I wonder if housing supply might have something to do with the challenge we’re facing.” No kidding. But the fact of the matter is, you’re bringing on people that have no experience whatsoever in the housing sector.

Yes, experience in local government is one aspect, but as I pointed out in the quote that he correctly read into the record, a big part of the problem is local government. They’re not getting the supply into the marketplace, and that’s why that has to change. I’ll have time to speak about that more if the Premier will keep his answers tight.

I do want to point out to the Premier that the reason I raise these questions about the bloating and exploding bureaucracy in the Premier’s office is that 46 percent of British Columbians are literally $200 a month away from not being able to meet their family budgets.

[3:25 p.m.]

There are a lot of people struggling after two terms of NDP government, with the highest fuel prices in North America, the highest housing prices in North America, the highest average rents in Canada, the highest grocery price increases and the highest inflation in the country.

All of those pressures are making it more difficult. So when they see the Premier’s exploding budget in his own Premier’s office, it frankly is a dissonance that doesn’t connect with the reality that most people are facing.

Now, we know the Premier has no qualms about spending more taxpayers’ money for more political control and his already bloated office, as evidenced by the $1.3 million increase in salaries and benefits over the last year alone. At an all-time record, nearly $14 million is now going to his high-paid advisers. That’s a 73 percent increase in salaries and benefits since 2016-2017.

Can the Premier please break down the number of full-time, part-time and contract staff being paid through the $14 million in salaries through Vote 11? How can he justify this massive increase in salaries in the middle of an affordability crisis?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked me to keep my an­swers short, but then he raises a whole pile of issues that we need to address.

The member made a series of allegations about housing — that our government was opposed to supply or didn’t care about supply or something. I only wish that when he was on this side of the House, he had cared as much about bringing housing supply in. We wouldn’t be in this situation today.

We have ten times more housing underway — that’s affordable and social housing — than when the B.C. Liberals left government. We’re already opening that housing at twice the rate of the B.C. Liberal government, and more is coming in all the time.

We set records for the number of new homes under construction — the highest in 60 years in this province. Purpose-built rental construction is up 650 percent from when that member was the Finance Minister. Housing starts up 70 percent from when that member was the Finance Minister. Housing completions up 50 percent, compared to when that member was the Finance Minister.

We’re building stuff like student housing. In 16 years, they only built 130 student housing beds. What did he think would happen with demand? We’ve got nearly 8,000 open or underway in five years.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Members are shouting, but they can get a chance to stand up. They should ask the question. This is estimates. Ask the questions.

The Chair: Premier has the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says he’s concerned about affordability. Of course, they would eliminate our rent cap on rentals, saving the average family $2,500 a year. Under the old government, under the previous member, landlords could raise rents at inflation plus an additional 2 percent year over year. That’s the member that put tolls on the bridge. That’s the member that raised MSP every year by 10 percent. He increased MSP, increased ICBC premiums by 11 percent.

But he did cut costs for some people. He gave tax breaks to big corporations and the top 2 percent of income earners. That’s interesting.

And then the member stands up in this place and says that our government put taxes on housing. We put taxes on empty units that this member would get rid of, which would eliminate 20,000 rental units at a time that we cannot afford to do that.

The member has asked about the Premier’s office salaries and expenditures. I’ll remind the member. In 2008-’09, Gordon Campbell’s office — the member was there — $3 million more, in today’s dollar, than the current budget. We are under the budgets of the Premier’s office in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta by tens of millions of dollars. We are continuing to work on the priorities of British Columbians.

The member’s record on affordability, after voting against the affordability credits in the supplementary estimates, voting against the support for B.C. Ferries to make sure that ferry fares are stable and that increases aren’t 10 percent a year for the next four years, voting against the advanced 911 system that the province would provide support to municipalities so property taxes wouldn’t go up.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s shouting at me. But….

The Chair: Could I call the House to order. I will also mention that we are on Vote 11. If people could keep their comments to Vote 11, it would be greatly appreciated.

Hon. D. Eby: Absolutely, hon. Chair. Thank you for the reminder.

Vote 11 is about the Premier’s office budget. We are well under the 2008 spending expenditure in this office, under the previous government, and we’re doing better than other provinces by a significant margin. We’re going to act responsibly and use those resources to take action on the priorities of British Columbians and keep doing that work.

K. Falcon: The Premier, again, in typical fashion, is being deceptive and not answering the question.

It was a very specific question, Premier. It was: what is the breakdown of full-time, part-time and contract staff that makes up the $14 million in salaries in Vote 11? Will you please provide that?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked a very detailed question. We don’t have those specific breakdowns. We’re endeavouring to count the numbers for him to be able to answer that. If he wants to ask another question, we can come back to that specific factual answer.

K. Falcon: Great. I want to make sure we get that on the record. I’ll wait while your staff is pulling that together, and we can move on to another question.

Related again…. Because we’ve got a huge challenge of affordability in this province, where people are struggling after two terms of NDP government…. We also see that one of the Premier’s very first decisions when he became Premier was to hand out some very controversial severance deals, including a $600,000 severance to Lori Wanamaker, only to appoint her the very same day to the B.C. Hydro board, a position that pays $93,000. This kind of largesse at a time when British Columbians are struggling to meet their monthly family expenditures is shocking, to say the least.

Can the Premier justify this very questionable $600,000 severance payout and the immediate, same-day appointment to another job paying $93,000 on the B.C. Hydro board?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised Ms. Wanamaker did not accept the stipend from B.C. Hydro. Perhaps that addresses the member’s concern.

In terms of severance generally, this is determined by the PSA according to human resource guidelines and policies that haven’t changed since the member was in government.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised that Ms. Wanamaker did not accept the stipend from B.C. Hydro for her service on the board there.

As far as her severance and severance generally, the amounts that are paid to individuals are determined by the PSA according to policies and procedures that were in place when the member was sitting on this side of the House, and they haven’t changed.

K. Falcon: We’ll confirm whether that is the case, for sure.

I also note the former chief of staff to the former Premier, Geoff Meggs, received a $340,000 severance at the age of 71. Perhaps even more concerning was NDP insider Amber Hockin, who received a payout of $190,000 after a very short stint as this Premier’s deputy chief of staff.

Can the Premier explain the rationale behind providing these kinds of generous severance payouts, particularly to someone who voluntarily resigned after accepting the position, while many British Columbians are facing the daily challenge of just paying rent or putting food on the table?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows we have legal obligations when it comes to severance and changing staff. These obligations are determined by legislation and case law in British Columbia. The amounts are determined by the public service, and we follow all appropriate public service policies.

Amber Hockin served government for years, not just for November. I’m grateful to her for her years of service.

In any transition, the member will be aware, you have to evaluate the structure of the organization and the needs going forward. The job description and the responsibilities for the deputy chief of staff role changed during the transition. That resulted, ultimately, in a change of staff. Previously, for example, the position did a lot of HR work. It now focuses more on public engagement.

I hope that’s of assistance to the member.

K. Falcon: Again, I note for the Premier that in the case of Amber Hockin, the NDP insider, she voluntarily resigned.

It seems strange to me that when someone voluntarily resigns, you send them out the door with a $190,000 payout at the time when families are struggling, as I say, just to pay their rent and to put food on the table. This just seems, to me, indicative of the kind of government we’re seeing, where wasteful spending is just a matter of course. I haven’t even gotten into infrastructure projects. God forbid. If the public could hear those stories, they’d be horrified.

[3:45 p.m.]

I do want to touch on the issue of another failed NDP promise, very similar to the 114,000 homes they promised — it was laughable; they never even came close to achieving — in the ten-year period. They don’t talk about it anymore, of course, because they’re doing a refresh of the housing plan.

One of the other areas they promised was, remarkably…. They would eliminate all portables in Surrey within four years. As we looked to see how they are doing on that program, after two terms of an NDP government, by the way — they’re in their sixth year — we found out that they not only had not eliminated the portables. They actually doubled the portables in Surrey to the point where we have the school trustees, with one voice, saying they’re now having to look at double-decker portables. There are so many portables in Surrey. They’re running out of space on the school grounds to put all these portables.

At some point, when you’ve taken up a big chunk of the parking lot, when you’ve taken up a big chunk of the field…. It’s difficult for teachers to have anywhere to park or for children to have anywhere to play.

I’d like the Premier to address why they would make such an outlandish promise and why, instead of actually eliminating portables, his NDP government has doubled them.

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows, and I understand why, that we have legal obligations when there’s a change of staff in government that we have to meet.

When Christy Clark came in as Premier, taking over from Gordon Campbell, she paid out — the same party — $12 million in severance. When I transitioned in from former Premier Horgan, we paid out $1.3 million in severance.

I do understand why the member is asking these questions. It is important. So is context when he talks about different approaches by different governments.

On the important question of schools for kids, especially in the fast-growing community of Surrey…. This is an issue close to the heart, certainly, of our government and a priority for us, from the previous Premier to myself and our new Education Minister, whose home is in Surrey.

Just in terms of making sure that resources are available, our latest budget invests two and a half times more in building and upgrading schools than when the Leader of the Opposition was the Finance Minister. We’re putting the resources in, and the results are coming.

New and expanded schools are open now, so 655 seats at the new Edgewood Elementary; 300 seats and an addition at Pacific Heights Elementary; 605 new seats at Douglas Elementary; 150 seats and an addition at Frost Road Elementary; 100 seats at Coyote Creek Elementary — that’s an addition; 700 seats and an addition at Sullivan Heights Secondary; 250 seats and an addition at Sunnyside Elementary; 190 seats and an addition at Morgan Elementary; 195 seats and an addition at White Rock Elementary.

[3:50 p.m.]

Many more new and expanded schools on the way for kids. A new school, Ta’talu Elementary. Semiahmoo Trail Elementary, Kwantlen Park Secondary and K.B. Woodward Elementary are all getting expansions. Snokomish Elementary, a new school. South Meridian Elementary, an expansion. Tamanawis Secondary, an expansion. Guildford Park Secondary, an expansion. Fleetwood Park Secondary, an expansion. Clayton Heights Secondary, an ex­pansion. Forsyth Road Elementary, an expansion. We’ve secured a site for Darts Hill elementary school and for Redwood Heights elementary school.

In summary, since we formed government, six new schools and many school expansions were completed for Surrey kids.

The member — I’m glad it’s a priority for him now. But when he was Finance Minister, he sold off public land that could have been used for schools. He flatlined education spending, and the results were that the opposition did not open any new schools in Surrey in their last four years as government. They only opened one addition. While members on that side were in charge, the number of portables in Surrey nearly doubled.

Now, Surrey is growing incredibly quickly: 250,000 peo­ple moved to B.C. in the last two years, and we know that Surrey has seen a huge portion of that growth — 10,000 student seats, with more to come. The priorities of parents in Surrey are our priorities. We’re working hard with the community to deliver those schools.

I’ll just note that I’m happy to answer the questions. I’m happy to take the questions, but this was the member who was yelling “Vote 11” at me just a few minutes ago.

K. Falcon: I know the member doesn’t like to purposely put out misinformation, but I would note that the severance that he mentioned that happened under Christy Clark was actually $2.4 million, not $12 million. I’m sure the Premier wouldn’t put out wrong information on purpose, though, frankly, I’m not so sure.

I would remind him that he listed off a bunch of schools — notably, many that were started under our government. I thank the Premier for that, but the question was actually about their…. Once again, they never like to talk about results and outcomes.

The result of their promise to eliminate portables was they doubled them. We actually reduced them by 100. I can tell them the exact numbers: from 370 to 273 by 2017. Under his government, they more than doubled them. Worse still, the situation is so bad that the entire board in Surrey has been raising the alarm, pointing out that they’re going to have to start looking at double-decker portables. Certainly, I’d never even heard the term during the entire time I was in government.

Again, getting back to housing. Because of the Premier’s challenge and how long it takes to get answers, in trying to get to a number of areas here…. Given the failed housing policy of this NDP government, which has resulted, again, in the worst outcomes in North America — important to point out — the Premier, presumably, in an attempt to try and demonstrate that they’re doing something, has talked about a refreshed housing strategy. That apparently includes rushing through changes to strata rental restrictions without much thought.

What it led to was literally 230 stratas converted to 55-plus age restrictions, taking 6,900 units out of the market for young people. Now, the goal of the Premier’s ill-considered changes to the Strata Act was supposed to be making more units available for young people. In fact, he achieved the exact opposite, by seeing 230 strata condos, representing almost 7,000 units of strata housing, suddenly converted to 55-plus.

Could the Premier please admit that these hasty and ill-conceived changes to the strata rental restrictions have had negative consequences for younger renters and that this rushed policy implementation may have been a mistake.

M. Starchuk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Starchuk: Joining us in the gallery right now are the grade 10 to 12 students from the Cloverdale Learning Centre, who are here with Tracey Lane. They are here to watch the debate on budget estimates for the Office of the Premier.

It was perfect timing that you got to hear the little blurb about the schools. Sorry that you couldn’t stay longer.

Anyway, could everybody make them feel welcome.

[3:55 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The member again raised a number of issues in the question. I’m happy to do my best to address them. There are 33,000 strata buildings, approximately, in the province, and 230 have converted to 55-plus.

What the member is referring to is legislation where we ended all rental restriction bylaws and limited any age restriction bylaws to 55-plus only. The buildings that this particularly affected were buildings that were built after 2012, because from 2012, new buildings that were constructed were not allowed to have rental restrictions.

There were a number of buildings that had rules that residents had to be 19-plus. People would be living in them, they would be a couple, they would become pregnant, and they would have to move out of the building because the baby was not allowed to stay in the building because the baby was under the age of 19.

[4:00 p.m.]

Profoundly unjust, unfair, not right, and we had to fix it. So we did. We got rid of that 19-plus age restriction. We ended rental restriction bylaws. I was stopped by a young woman in my constituency. She said: “Thanks for changing that. I moved in with my boyfriend, but I want to keep my unit.” No comment. She wanted to keep it as a backup. Didn’t want to sell it. And she said: “I wasn’t able to rent it out, so I felt so bad. I was keeping an empty place. I know people want a place to rent, and the change that you made meant that I can rent that place out now.”

We know that happened in literally thousands of strata units: 2,800 claimed a speculation and vacancy tax exemption based on the fact that their building had rental restrictions. So almost 3,000 units brought back onto the market, or at least paying speculation and vacancy tax now.

The member is right — 230 buildings looked at the situation and said: “Okay, we’re going to make sure that our building is 55 plus. This is a restriction we’re allowed to put in place.” Seniors looking for rental housing are a significant group in our province. It’s not a bad thing to have rental units available in a 55-plus unit for seniors.

What happened, if you can believe it, is some of these buildings went 55 plus and then issued eviction notices to owners in the buildings that had been there the whole time who were under 55. There were parents with kids who wrote in to government and said: “Hold on a sec. I just got an eviction notice because my building is going 55 plus, and I’m not allowed to live here anymore.” In this session, we passed legislation to fix that issue. The regulation is imminent.

Is it a mistake to make empty units available for rental? Not if you sit on this side of the House. But having seen that member speak again and again and again against the speculation and vacancy tax, now today against the idea that if you own a strata unit you can rent it out, that you should be able to be told that you have to keep it vacant, that he thinks it was a mistake to address that issue, that he thought it was right that a couple that had a kid in a 19-plus building would have to sell their unit and leave, that it was right that they’d be evicted…. Again, I struggle to understand.

The member stands up and says: “There are big challenges in housing in this province. We need to address housing.” Then he stands up and says: “Wasn’t it a mistake to make empty units available for people?” I guess he can explain that to voters.

The reference on the Christy Clark severance. The mem­ber suggested I was engaging in misinformation. I’m happy to give citations to the member anytime. Article’s called “Severance After Changeover,” written by Rob Shaw, published December 19, 2022. The quote: “In 2017, taxpayers paid out almost $12 million to 133 staffers when the B.C. Liberals were replaced by the new NDP government. The difference in this case is that the governing party didn’t change, only the leaders.”

K. Falcon: Of course I know I can’t keep correcting the record. The Premier likes to read off articles and not budget documents. But I will just point out that as a result of the Premier’s hasty decisions around the strata rental restrictions, up to 7,000 extra units with restrictions have now emerged where there were none before. That’s just reality. Those 7,000 units, no longer available as a result of the Premier’s not considering how the market might operate when you make changes like that.

I would like to move, though, onto another area that I think typifies in many ways why this government is unable to get anything done, especially around housing. This is an example where nearly two years ago, the entire village of Lytton burnt to the ground in a devastating wildfire that destroyed the entire village. Despite the NDP promises to create their “community for the future,” the response has lacked any kind of urgency and demonstrated their total inability to handle something as simple as getting a community back on track.

Delays in clearing wreckage, soil testing and addressing archaeological sites have further impeded the process. Residents feel abandoned by this government, and the Premier hasn’t even visited the place. I’ve been there, by the way, on two occasions. The Premier hasn’t even visited the town.

The lack of progress has left the community without a single shovel in the ground for any home or business, raising questions about this government’s commitment to supporting them. They’ve spent $32 million so far without any tangible results. Can the Premier please explain how it’s possible to spend $32 million and not have a single shovel in the ground two years later?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: First piece. I want to correct myself. I mis­spoke. Wrong article. The correct article is the CBC, April 30, 2011, and the actual spending in Christy Clark’s administration was $2.4 million versus $1.3 million, not $12 million versus $1.3 million.

The absolutely horrific destruction of an entire community by wildfire, seen by people around the world as a real demonstration of the horrific power of climate-related disaster…. Early morning on June 30, 2021, a wildfire destroyed the whole city of Lytton in minutes. Two people died. There is still an RCMP investigation underway about the cause of the fire. Ninety percent of the structures in the village site were damaged. Most of the commercial and public services in the village, 124 residences, 28 commercial properties and 45 outbuildings were destroyed.

The village lost its administrative office, which had on site all of its physical and it’s backup digital records. The entire administrative history of the village of Lytton was destroyed. The Lytton First Nation lost about 45 residences, five commercial properties and two outbuildings.

The province has stepped in. I agree with the member that this is painful and slow work when there’s a fire like this. First of all, it’s a contaminated site. The site has to be cleared, the contaminated soil removed, all of the essential infrastructure, like water treatment and sewer infrastructure, has to be put in place.

Municipal and fire services. Government has dedicated $21 million to that and $9.3 million to support the village operations and staffing. Their entire tax base burned down. In addition, they had to reconstruct all of their by­laws and all of their administrative records within the village as best as they could, given that they were destroyed by fire.

[4:10 p.m.]

So $23.4 million was spent to support debris removal, archaeological work and soil remediation for uninsured and underinsured properties in the village. And $18.4 million of that was announced in March 2022. An additional $5 million was needed and was allocated in December 2022. The funding that’s being provided will support the village operations through three years of core operations. Those years have been ’22, ’23 and now ’24, where the work has focused, with the regional district, on planning, recovery and rebuilding.

The remarkable work that’s required includes, almost in a perfect storm…. This village site has been a village site for millennia. The village itself is located on significant and important Indigenous heritage, Indigenous village sites, artifacts, and so on. Archaeological work has been re­quired extensively in order to move forward. Obviously, that is a huge and demanding and challenging thing.

We’re supporting residents. Residents can request a letter from the archaeology branch to ensure they have all the information they need to begin the rebuilding process. The village is now ready to be receiving those building permit applications. In fact, a building symposium will be held in a few weeks, I understand. We are going to continue to provide that support as the village rebuilds itself and the people are able to return to what was the site of that terrible disaster.

K. Falcon: Well, the irony here…. In listening to that an­swer, it tells you exactly why nothing is getting done in this province. It’s all government, all process, all bureaucracy, all the time.

The irony is, in the village of Lytton, which burned to the ground, the portion that is under federal jurisdiction…. They’ve actually already completed their construction. The residents have returned to their homes. They’ve got sprinklers going on their lawns, and everyone’s kids are playing in the parks. Only in the provincial area has nothing happened, and we now know why. Oh, apparently everyone is supposed to be happy that maybe they can start applying for building permits two years after this thing burnt to the ground. What an absolute record of non-accomplishment. I can’t even believe it.

Again I want to ask the Premier…. I gave him that op­portunity. We were looking for a breakdown, in Vote 11, of the $14 million in salaries. I wanted a breakdown between the full-time, part-time and contract staff. Your staff have had a lot of time to look at that. I’d like the breakdown from the Premier now, please.

Hon. D. Eby: The numbers I’ve been given are 94 full-time, two part-time and four current contracts.

The member asked for a salary band breakdown. I don’t have that immediately available for him, but we will pro­vide that to him.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the opportunity to ask the Premier some questions in the Premier’s estimates.

The way I’m going to approach this is, really, to review a lot of what we heard during the estimates so far with other ministers and to try to establish decision-making processes, overarching principles, how data is being used to inform decisions and the Premier’s positions on things that have been stated by his ministers.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’m going to start with Housing. During estimates, my colleague the House Leader asked the Minister of Housing if he believed that housing was a human right. The minister responded by saying: “I believe that people have the right to shelter in British Columbia.”

My question for the Premier. Can the Premier confirm whether the statement made by his Minister of Housing properly conveys his government’s position on whether housing is a human right or whether the Premier and his government believe that only shelter is a human right?

Hon. D. Eby: I apologize to the member for the delay. I’m just seeking to confirm the quote. I have just gone through a couple of days of quotes out of context.

The important question that the member asks is: what is the right to housing in British Columbia? Legally speaking, the case law has evolved to the point where if you’re asking somebody to leave a park or sleeping on a sidewalk, the municipal government needs to provide a dignified place for that person to go, a dignified shelter. A mat on the floor is not sufficient.

[4:20 p.m.]

It is correct to say that currently in British Columbia, recognized through case law at the Supreme Court level, there is a right to basic shelter. So the Housing Minister is correct. I think what the member is asking, though, is, is there a larger aspirational goal of this government, and there is.

I believe, personally, there is a right for every human to a dignified place that they can afford, where they can build their lives, where they can participate as citizens, where they are able to build a family if they choose to do that and to realize their ambitions in life. That is the goal of our housing strategy, that is the goal of our work, and we will continue to work on that and prioritize that goal in our housing work every day.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the Premier for that. I’m glad that we got to the overarching question of values. I think it’s important that the Premier is really clear I’m not trying to do any gotchas here. I’m just trying to clarify. I recognize…. But, really, this is a process of clarification, and I think not just for us but for the public to have the ability to have these things clarified.

In his questions with the Housing Minister, as well, my colleague asked about data and specifically about the number of housing units that currently exist in B.C., because in terms of what the Premier was just talking about, a housing strategy, I think that it is so critical and essential that strategies and planning be data informed. We didn’t get an answer to the question: how many housing units are there currently in British Columbia? I’m wondering if that data is available now.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the federal government, through census data, does count something called “private dwellings.” I’m afraid I don’t have any more detail about what’s included in that and what’s not, but the number is 2.211 million private dwellings in British Columbia, the most recent number from the census data.

[4:25 p.m.]

We do have data-driven work that we do around the housing issue. First, on the issue of homelessness, we have two separate homeless counts that we do, trying to count the number of people who are living outside or in emergency shelter. We have a data-based approach where we have anonymized data from several different government data sets. For example, if you’re receiving social assistance, but you don’t have a fixed address, that would be a marker towards being homeless. That data is one way that we count or try to measure trends related to homelessness.

The other is, and I know the member is familiar with this, the street counts, where volunteers go out and do counts. There’s a fairly significant gap between those two numbers, generally because the street counts are not as successful as the data-driven approach. Identifying people requires a point in time. It’s hard to measure trends, and it’s whether or not you can find somebody on that particular day that the count is done.

The second data-driven approach we take is we have required municipalities across the province to produce a housing-needs study. This requires looking at population growth in their communities and income levels and determining what kinds of housing the community is going to need over time.

We will be using these studies, under new legislation that we passed in this place, to set targets for municipalities for housing approvals, to align the interests of people who are building homes and municipalities to get those places built but also to assist municipalities with planning processes so they recognize they might need townhomes or they might need a small apartment building in their community. That’s the kind of growth we’re seeing even in very small communities across the province.

That data is vital to assist local government in making those decisions, and as a senior level of government, allowing the provincial government to ensure municipalities are focusing on that reality that they’re facing and that we’re facing at the provincial level.

Finally, as a government, we have been tracking our target of 114,000 units of housing through a number of different categories of bringing housing on. I know the member is well familiar with those numbers, so I won’t spend her time going through all of that in detail.

S. Furstenau: Thanks for that.

I want to point out that back when the speculation and vacancy tax was introduced, a lot of the discourse around it was that it would be a tool to provide data on housing. I won’t pursue this any further because I have such limited time, but I’d be interested in, perhaps at a later day, a conversation about how effectively the speculation and vacancy tax is actually delivering that very specific data on housing in British Columbia.

I do want to move to transit. I know this has been brought up by the official opposition — the ongoing transit strike we have in the Fraser Valley on top of the longest transit strike that we have in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

These are transit operations that are providing what is, in my view, an essential public service — public transit — but the public funds are going to a private, for-profit corporation. They are contracted out to a private operator. The private operators, in these situations, are paying transit operators less than they get paid in other regions. The root problem that we see with this is that an essential public service is contracted out to a for-profit, private company.

My question for the Premier really is a question of values. Does he think that essential public operations should be delivered in this province by for-profit, private corporations?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will certainly be familiar with my position on public health care, public education, public services generally in the province.

The issue of transit is one of partnership with local gov­ernments. I was just…. The member probably saw a quick conversation with the Minister of Transportation on this issue.

First of all, in terms of the Fraser Valley transit strike, the company that provides that transit service is supposed to…. They don’t get paid if they’re not delivering the service. So they’re not getting paid currently unless they’re actually providing services.

The issue of private bus services providing service in other municipalities…. The reason why we have such a comprehensive provincial transit system is…. We have an easy-to-join system for local governments to be able to enter into a partnership with the province to deliver that transit service. Those local governments are paying, in some cases, half or more of the cost of that transit service. Changes in the delivery model would need to be driven by those local government partners. We work with them on the model that will work the best for them in their communities.

I agree with the member. Transit is an essential service for many, many British Columbians. That’s why we are con­tinuing to commit major investments for B.C. Transit, capital funding, as well as major transit projects like the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain and the Broadway SkyTrain project — to strengthen our public transit system right across the province and in high-demand areas.

[4:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: That’s not quite answering the specific question. I was transit chair for the Cowichan Valley re­gional district, so I’m familiar with that agreement. B.C. Transit has a fair amount of say in the decision-making.

I’m going to quibble with a comprehensive transit system outside of the major urban centres. As a person who has been advocating for improved transit, even to the region, right out of the capital regional district…. That is far from comprehensive at this point.

The question for the Premier is: does he think that it’s fair and reasonable that the bus drivers and the workers are being paid less when they work on a public transit system in one of the systems that’s operated by a private company?

Hon. D. Eby: I have talked with people from Cowichan about some of their frustrations — and, I think, maybe even the member — with particular bus routes and fre­quency and multiple transfers. Always room for improvement in transit to support people.

One point is incontrovertible. Our government, in terms of capital spending, new capital projects, as well as spending on transit generally…. We’re head and shoulders ahead, on a per-capita basis, of any other province in Canada. I’m proud of that. We believe that people being able to get around efficiently and quickly, in a low-carbon way, is a critically important thing. I totally accept the very legitimate advocacy for more and better transit service. That’s an important thing.

On the issue of wage parity, this was a core issue at the table in the Whistler transit strike. That was, unfortunately, a long and, certainly, painful strike for the community and for everybody involved. That was a core issue there. A mediator came in. It was actually Vince Ready. He worked with the transit provider as well as with the drivers to get a path to parity for them in Whistler.

The Minister of Labour has offered those same services to the transit provider and to the drivers — the services of a mediator. It could even, potentially — hopefully, we can get him — be Vince Ready. He could work, hopefully, that same magic at the table to get those drivers on the path to parity in a way that they could agree with and that the company could agree with, and we can get people moving. I am delving dangerously close, though, to matters at the bargaining table in the Fraser Valley strike.

I want to encourage both sides to get back to the table. The Labour Minister has offered a mediator to talk through issues like parity and other issues that may be causing this labour dispute. I believe that they’ll be able to get to a solution and to get people moving again in the Fraser Valley.

S. Furstenau: Again, I think the questions are really trying to get at the underlying values. When we have a publicly funded system, which gets public funding….

[4:40 p.m.]

One would hope that there are some expectations or clear guidelines attached to the conditions for workers within a publicly funded system. It would ensure that they don’t have to fight for those, what we should expect to be fairness and parity conditions in a publicly funded system. That’s what I’m trying to get to. The values questions are where, I think, people should have the expectation to have a really clear understanding of where a Premier and where government stands.

Another example. The Premier has said, prior to being Premier: “We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and hit our climate goals.” Yet last March the IPCC released its sixth report and confirmed the statement unequivocally. It is becoming more and more abundantly clear that we cannot thread the needle of more fossil fuel infrastructure on this planet. We need governments — that have really failed to do what’s required of them for decades in terms of making the decisions — to move us away from more and more fossil fuel infrastructure.

Since the Premier became Premier, Cedar LNG has been approved. It looks like we have other potential fossil fuel infrastructure lining up. We are seeing pipelines going through Wet’suwet’en territory. We are seeing the damage from this. We know LNG is not a transition fuel. We know that. It’s not for debate. The methane emissions that come from fracking in the northeast of B.C. are drivers of climate change in this province.

The question for the Premier is can he now, in the role that he is in, tell British Columbians where he stands on the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in this province?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question for commitment to this critical issue of our time.

My personal belief: the government’s policies are in line. We have the best climate plan in North America, but we need to take steps to make sure that that plan becomes reality through everything from funding for clean energy initiatives to a legislated emissions cap for the oil and gas sector and requirements that any proposed additional LNG facility entering the environmental assessment develops a credible net-zero-by-2030 plan. That’s for the oil and gas sector.

[4:45 p.m.]

That is how we make sure we actually hit those targets, that they are meaningful. We communicated that message directly to industry. They understand it. We are working to ensure that we hit that we hit that cap. It will mean things like electrification of our entire economy. That includes heavy industry. That includes oil and gas. That includes transportation. To that end, it’s certainly been my concern that our B.C. Hydro policy is not keeping up with where we’re going to need to go on leveraging the huge advantage we have with clean hydroelectricity as an economic driver in our province.

We have a new task force in place to drive that development, to make sure that British Columbia is a leader in this sector, that we’re supporting our neighbours, potentially, in Washington state and Alberta in reducing their emissions, that we’re driving industry growth in our province. And more to do.

As an example of some of our success, we’re a leader in clean transportation in North America. We had the second-highest zero-emission vehicle adoption rate in North America recently — 18.1 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales. We’re moving into industrial vehicles and other sectors of transportation.

I’m very grateful to have the support of significant and high-profile people who have spent their careers working on this, for the work that our government is doing, including the challenging but important issue of a cap on the oil and gas sector.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the Premier for the re­sponse. I think the question, really, if we go from this statement, “We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and hit our climate goals,” which is a very clear and unequivocal statement.

The approval since becoming Premier of at least one more LNG plant and maybe more beyond that, I think the question for the public is that if, when the Premier is campaigning, he says one thing and then, when he’s governing, we get something else, is which one are they to believe? The campaigning or the governing Premier?

Hon. D. Eby: I know, and I understand the member is skeptical about the ability of the oil and gas sector to meet our expectations of net zero 2030 and to work within the cap that we’re putting in place. The cap that we’re putting in place is entirely consistent with the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 and our targets.

My commitment to British Columbians was that we were going to hit our targets. And we’re going to be introducing a legislated cap that requires that. It led Dr. Andrew Weaver — sorry to do this to the member, I really am, but he is a respected international climate scientist — to lend his name and a quote to our press release on this: “B.C. is leading the way with a new enhanced energy framework. A bold plan that will drive down emissions and build new opportunities in the clean economy sector.”

We’re finding a balance here. Recognizing we have an oil and gas sector in the province that employs a lot of people. They need to drive down their emissions. They need to hit these targets. They need to work with us, and we are ready to work with them to make sure that that happens.

The long term is we know we need to electrify our economy. We need to leverage our advantages in hydrogen, in clean energy, in clean fuel. We’re doing that work as well. There are some really exciting opportunities right now in the province that we’re pursuing aggressively, including through our hydro task force and including through private sector hydrogen and clean energy projects.

I’m very excited to work with proponents of those projects, and to work with the oil and gas sector to drive down emissions so that B.C. can be a leader in hitting our targets, which is what I committed to British Columbians. We’re going to bring in a law to make sure that it happens.

[4:50 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: During Health estimates, I asked the Minister of Health what his response was to the Human Rights Commissioner, who stated that removing the mask mandate in health care settings does not reflect a human rights–​based approach to public health.

The minister, in response to that, said: “…I respectfully disagree with the Human Rights Commissioner…. Dr. Henry and her team always act with the most vulnerable in mind.”

My question for the Premier, whose office actually was integral in creating the Human Rights Commissioner’s office, who championed having a Human Rights Commissioner and who, I think, saw this as an important role in British Columbia for upholding human rights and for being the voice of human rights in this province…. Does the Premier also disagree with the Human Rights Commissioner?

Hon. D. Eby: Two respected people in their relevant spheres of authority, Dr. Bonnie Henry and Dr. Kasari Go­vender, human rights and public health, disagreeing with each other. The member says: “Choose a side.”

The good news is I don’t think I have to. The good news is Dr. Henry and her approach, the Health Minister’s approach and government’s approach throughout the pandemic crisis has been a human rights–focused approach: preferred access for vaccines for vulnerable people; nationally leading long-term care responses and support for people living in long-term care; wage levelling; supporting workers there to be able to deliver care in the crisis, so we didn’t see some of the horrific things we saw in Ontario and Quebec; supporting farmworkers, a group that is often neglected, not prioritized, making sure that those vulnerable workers were looked after.

The good news is that Dr. Henry’s science and her science-based decision on this, as a public health expert, has not resulted in a significant increase in COVID-19 at hospitals. In fact, we’ve seen a reduction of 40 cases of the num­ber of people in hospital with COVID-19 since this change. Now, it’s not to say, of course, that the mask mandate caused COVID, of course not, but just that the lifting of it is consistent with an understanding that the curve of the virus is at this level right now.

When it comes to the pandemic, the pandemic public health approach, and so on, we do defer to public health officials. But as a reassurance to the Human Rights Commissioner, to the member, to British Columbians, the ap­proach has always been a human rights–based approach.

S. Furstenau: I think it’s important to recognize that the Premier, when he was Attorney General, appointed a Human Rights Commissioner and that that role, the person in that role, is tasked with looking at government policy and looking at it through a human rights lens. She has done that, and she has come forward several times in the last year, two years, and indicated that she thinks that a human rights–based approach has not been upheld. She has said that.

[4:55 p.m.]

Her role in this province is to weigh in on human rights. That’s her job. So it’s not that I’m asking the Premier to choose a side. I’m asking the Premier to let me and the public know about the role of the Human Rights Commissioner. If she comes forward with very clear statements, as she has, about human rights not being upheld in government decision-making, and her concerns are not being recognized as being important, then the question is: why have a Human Rights Commissioner?

We have hospitals right now telling people not to come to hospital. We had the B.C. Children’s Hospital, a couple of weeks ago, say: “If you’re sick, don’t come in.” We have Langley Memorial Hospital saying: “Don’t come here. We can’t handle it.”

I can see that the Minister of Health is getting very agitated, but I want to come back to the Human Rights Commissioner.

Interjection.

S. Furstenau: These are…. I can find the tweets. I can find the information. The Human Rights Commissioner has raised concerns that, particularly, removing a mask mandate in health care settings does not reflect a human rights–based approach to health care.

The Premier — the question for him is not to choose sides here. The question is: what is the role of the Human Rights Commissioner and, when she and her office weigh in on public decision-making like that, what’s the appropriate response from government?

Hon. D. Eby: The Human Rights Commissioner — we want her to monitor what’s happening in the province. We want her to speak up. We want her to use her voice and her experience, bring it to the table. I’m sure that public health takes her feedback into consideration. But at the end of the day, the public health orders come from public health, and those orders will be made by public health, including Dr. Henry and the other public health officials.

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

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[5:00 p.m.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO REVIEW PROVISIONS
OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to move a motion to appoint a special committee to review the provisions of the Public Service Act.

The full text of the motion has been provided to the two other House Leaders.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move:

[That a Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Public Service Act be appointed, pursuant to section 25.1 of the Public Service Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 385) to review that Act in relation to dismissal process reviews by the Merit Commissioner.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

e. retain such personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by May 10, 2024; and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee is to be composed of the following Members: George Chow (Convener), Michael de Jong, Mike Morris, Roly Russell, Harwinder Sandhu and Nicholas Simons.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the motion.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO REVIEW
PASSENGER DIRECTED VEHICLES

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to move a motion to appoint a special committee to review passenger-directed vehicles.

The full text of the motion has been provided to the other two House Leaders.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move:

[That a Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles be appointed pursuant to section 42.1 of the Passenger Transportation Act (S.B.C. 2004, c. 39) to review passenger directed vehicle services and transportation network companies administered under the Act. This includes, but is not limited to, a review of the following:

a. whether the provision of licences under the Act that include passenger directed vehicle authorizations or transportation network services authorizations promotes an adequate supply of passenger directed vehicles, including accessible passenger directed vehicles, and passenger and driver safety;

b. the effectiveness of the test set out in section 28 (1) in promoting adequate supply and passenger and driver safety;

c. whether the Act promotes employment in the passenger directed vehicle services and transportation network services industries;

d. impacts on public transportation, traffic congestion and the environment attributable to the administration under this Act of passenger directed vehicle services and transportation network services; and

e. whether the Act promotes passenger directed vehicle services, including transportation network services, in small, rural or remote communities.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by May 10, 2024, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Mable Elmore (Convener), Shirley Bond, Kelly Greene, Janet Routledge, Doug Routley and Jordan Sturdy.]

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

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO APPOINT A
POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to move a motion to appoint a special committee to appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner.

The full text of the motion has been provided to the other two House Leaders.

Leave granted.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move:

[That a Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual as Police Complaint Commissioner for the province of British Columbia, pursuant to section 47 of the Police Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367).

That the Special Committee have all the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

d. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House as soon as possible, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Garry Begg (Convener), Trevor Halford, Renee Merrifield, Adam Olsen, Kelli Paddon and Aman Singh.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call for consideration of the reports of resolution from the Committee of Supply.

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. K. Conroy: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on March 9, 27, 28, 29, April 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, May 1, 3, 4, 10 and 11 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. K. Conroy: I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund, the sum of 68 billion, 449 million, 172 thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. This sum includes the sum that was authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2023.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES, LOANS, INVESTMENTS
AND OTHER FINANCING REQUIREMENTS

Hon. K. Conroy: I move:

[That there be granted to His Majesty, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund, the sum of 1 billion, 351 million, 564 thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements for capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. This sum includes the sum that was authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2023.]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — SUPPLY ACT, 2023–2024

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2023–2024.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 30 be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the 2023-24 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply, after consideration of the main estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

Hon. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

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

Bill 30, Supply Act, 2023–2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated and transmitted electronically to members participating remotely.

I remind members that as the final supply bill is founded on resolutions passed in the Committee of Supply and adopted upon a motion by this House, it is considered an administrative act. Accordingly, in keeping with the practice of this House, this bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Apart from the brief introductory remarks already made by the Minister of Finance, pursuant to practice recommendation No. 5, the bill is not subject to further debate.

[5:10 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — SUPPLY ACT, 2023–2024

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 30 be read for a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 30 be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 30, Supply Act, 2023–2024, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — SUPPLY ACT, 2023–2024

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 5:13 p.m.

The Chair: I call the committee to order on Bill 30, the Supply Act, 2023–2024.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedule 1 approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 30 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:15 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — SUPPLY ACT, 2023–2024

Bill 30, Supply Act, 2023–2024, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. K. Conroy: Now, hon. Speaker.

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

Division has been called.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Members, the question is the third reading of Bill 30, Supply Act, 2023–2024.

Bill 30, Supply Act, 2023–2024, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 47
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chant	Chen	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Fleming	Furstenau
Glumac	Heyman	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Malcolmson	Mercier	Olsen
Osborne	Paddon	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
Walker		Whiteside
NAYS — 21
Bernier	Clovechok	Davies
Doerkson	Falcon	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Paton	Ross
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturdy	Sturko	Wat

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await her arrival.

In the meantime, I ask all members to clean your desks. If you have any valuables in there, remove them now. Otherwise, you may not find them when you come back.

[5:30 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023

Election Amendment Act, 2023

Pay Transparency Act

Family Law Amendment Act, 2023

Haida Nation Recognition Act

Money Services Businesses Act

Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023

Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023

Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023

Electoral Districts Act

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act, 2023

Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023

St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2023–2024

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank His Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you so much, Kate.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE.

Good day, dear friends. It’s great to see you today. I know you’re all anxious to be moving on. So I promise not to take too long.

I did want to just take a moment to think of those of you who are heading back to your home communities that are currently experiencing the fires and floods. It is certainly my hope that we are able to avoid some of the really enormous problems that have plagued us in this province in recent years. I wanted to express my appreciation for all the preparation that has been done in order to support those communities and to all the people who are on the front lines.

Also, just to say how very much I enjoy the opportunity to see all of you and to get to know all of you. I truly appreciate your really splendid work.

I know you’re off to your communities, and I know there’s lots of work to be done. I look forward to an opportunity to connect with you all sooner than later.

All the very best, and thank you again.

[SENĆOŦEN was spoken.]

I feel very proud of the work that is done all together.

Take care, friends.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[5:35 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to table an updated 2023 parliamentary calendar.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Kahlon: I rise to table the updated 2023 parliamentary calendar. November 2 will no longer be designated as a sitting day due to the events in relation to the First Nations leadership gathering.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Before I move the final motion, on behalf of everybody in this place, I want to thank the amazing people that support us to do all the work we do here today. I hope some of them get some time to enjoy golf over the holidays.

I’m looking over at you. [Applause.]

A big thanks to everybody. Of course, to Kate and everybody on the team. I really appreciate it.

With that, I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 42nd parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker shall give notice to all members that he is satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date.

By agreement of the Speaker and the House Leader of each recognized caucus, the location of sittings and the means of conducting sittings of the House may be altered, if required, due to an emergency situation or public health measures. Such agreement constitutes the authorization of the House to proceed in the manner agreed to. The Speaker shall give notice to all members of the agreement and shall table it and print it in the Votes and Proceedings of the House at the next sitting.

In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act instead for the purpose of this order. In the event of the Deputy Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order. And in the event of the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, another member designated collectively by the House Leaders of each recognized caucus shall act in their stead for the purpose of this order.

Hon. Speaker, I forgot the most important thing. The amazing people here have asked us to please clean out our desks. If there’s a friend nearby that has gone already, please do them a favour and take the stuff out.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

Have a very safe summer, and be healthy. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.