Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 397
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2024
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: T. Stone.
Introductions by Members
K. Paddon: I know all of us in the House understand how integral our constituency staff are for our success and in taking care of our communities. I would like to welcome to the chamber, to question period, Jennifer Trithardt-Tufts, my full-time CA, as well as Lorna Seip.
They keep me organized. They make sure the community has access to everything they need. I’m just so grateful that they came here today — well, this week, actually — to make sure that they meet in person everyone that we are constantly contacting and asking for help and resources.
Thank you so much for being here.
Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Osborne: I have the honour today of introducing representatives from Newmont, the world’s leading gold-mining company. Minister Bailey and I had the pleasure of meeting with them this morning.
Newmont has a robust portfolio that includes two major copper mines in British Columbia. The company operates and is widely recognized for its principled ESG practices and has earned the distinction as one of the most transparent companies in the S&P 500.
Here in B.C., Newmont is the owner of Red Chris and Brucejack mines, directly employing more than 3,000 people, spending close to $1.5 billion in procurement, with nearly $400 million of that going to Indigenous businesses.
Mining brings 35,000 good family-supporting jobs here to British Columbia. It is thriving in B.C., and clearly, Newmont is a huge part of that.
Would the House please welcome John Mullally and Keivan Hirji from Newmont, along with Rob McPhee from the Tāłtān Central Government.
J. Tegart: I am very pleased to introduce a friend and former resident of Ashcroft. Alf Trill is visiting the precinct today.
Please help me make him welcome.
Hon. J. Whiteside: It is a great pleasure this morning to introduce two guests in the House who were also here to join me for a really important announcement that we made this morning about investing in recovery services.
We’re joined by Brenda Plant from the Turning Point Recovery Society, who is also executive director of the B.C. Addiction Recovery Association, and Susan Sanderson, executive director of the Realistic Success Recovery Society. They are both leading organizations who are making such incredible contributions to helping people in British Columbia recover. I’m so grateful for our partnership.
Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.
K. Greene: Folks might notice that I’ve got a bit of a grin on my face today. My husband, Trevor, is joining us in the gallery today, so I might be grinning like this all day.
Love you.
Please make him welcome.
A. Singh: In the gallery today we have Harbinder Athwal, president, and Bhavjit Thandi, CFO, of Richmond Plywood.
Richmond Plywood is an incredible company. They’ve been operating in Richmond for 60 years. They have about 400 employees, and about 300 of those employees own the company, so it’s a co-op. It’s an incredible success story, the kind of story that our government wants to support.
Could you please welcome them.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Will the chamber please welcome members of the Nanaimo Climate Action Hub — Kathryn Hazel, Laurie Friskie, Larry Whaley, Lucas Whaley.
Will the House please make them very welcome.
G. Kyllo: It gives me a great amount of pride today to announce that I am now one step closer to my retirement.
This last Saturday the Salmon Arm–Shuswap Riding Association held a nomination race. Greg McCune, a four-term former councillor and two-term former mayor of Enderby, was a successful candidate, and he will actually be on the ballot in this next provincial election.
I want to welcome Greg McCune to our B.C. United team.
D. Routley: I’d like to add to my colleague’s welcome to the Nanaimo Climate Action Hub and single out two people in particular: my friend Trent Whaley, who has been a very supportive person and a real beacon of logical and reasoned debate in the Nanaimo area; and then a special note to Kathryn-Jane Hazel, who is….
I think we vote differently, but Kathryn-Jane has been involved in community organizations throughout south Nanaimo, has added so much to the fabric of the community and building up areas that have really struggled.
She’s a real shining example to everyone of how to work across lines and work with anybody to achieve good things in community, and I thank her very much for the example she’s shown to me of leadership in working together in community.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 10 — COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
Hon. R. Fleming presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 2024.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 10, the Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 2024. This bill amends the Commercial Transport Act to modernize the value of deterrent penalties under the act in an industry where safety violations can have severe consequences, such as overheight commercial vehicle crashes against provincial highway infrastructure.
The current maximum penalty of $500, established in 1971, has minimal deterrent value in an industry where these safety violations cause severe consequences for everyone who uses the highway. This current maximum limits enforcement officers from pursuing more severe penalties against commercial trucking operators involved in serious and egregious violations — for example, those involved in serious or multiple infrastructure crashes or instances where a driver’s negligence has led to serious injury or death.
Key changes of Bill 10 focus on allowing more severe penalties through the court, a court-supported report by Crown counsel. It will apply a new limit of $100,000 for drivers who commit offences under the act, and it will provide a maximum term of imprisonment for up to 18 months, thereby enabling the courts to impose fines, imprisonment or both upon conviction of a driver.
These amendments support the ongoing efforts of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and trucking industry associations to highlight the importance of compliance with safety rules among all commercial transport drivers.
B.C. boasts a highly professional, skilled commercial driving workforce who suffer economically and reputationally from the very small number of drivers operating in an unsafe, careless fashion. This bill seeks to pinpoint enforcement on this very small number of irresponsible operators and protect the safety of all highway users and our infrastructure investments.
The Speaker: The question is first reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 10, Commercial Transport Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
WILDFIRE RESPONSE BY
SHUSWAP COMMUNITY
MEMBERS
G. Kyllo: Today I rise in the House to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for the community leaders and heroes that courageously battled the wildfires this past summer as they swept across B.C.
B.C. witnessed last summer the most devastating wildfire season in the history of our province. These fires threatened the safety and livelihoods of people across B.C. Selfless individuals fought hard on B.C.’s front lines to protect both people and property, oftentimes at much financial cost and personal risk.
Among these remarkable individuals are valued members of my Shuswap community, Matt and Craig Spooner. Last summer 179 structures were lost in the North Shuswap, including 34 homes for the Little Shuswap Lake Band.
When wildfires threatened Shuswap this past summer, Matt and Craig took immediate action. Having 15 years of service with the local volunteer fire department, they utilized their experience to prepare and to protect the communities of Scotch Creek and the surrounding area. They purchased pumps, hoses, essential supplies, prepped water trucks and utilized their own equipment in order to help safeguard the community that they love.
Countless other community members also took the task of protecting their community, including Karl Bischoff, who was instrumental in putting in a fireguard to help protect the community of Celista. Their courageous efforts played a crucial role in saving countless homes and businesses across the North Shuswap.
I also want to recognize the efforts of the local volunteer fire departments, B.C. Wildfire members and the community members across B.C. that collectively fought wildfires this past summer. They risked their lives to protect their fellow British Columbians, and their service will not be forgotten.
Each year firefighters across B.C. come together to fight wildfires, and I commend their bravery and dedication to protecting our province. These remarkable individuals are our province’s heroes, and today we honour their dedication and bravery in safeguarding lives and homes across B.C.
NEURODIVERSITY CELEBRATION WEEK
S. Chant: I’ll begin by acknowledging that I am on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.
I am honoured to represent the people from North Vancouver–Seymour, situated on the unceded territory of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations.
I rise today to commemorate Neurodiversity Celebration Week, observed from March 18 to 24. Let’s celebrate together the many talents and achievements of neurodivergent people and do our part to challenge stereotypes and misconceptions about neurological differences.
This celebration was started in 2018 by a 16-year-old self-advocate, Siena Castellon, who has autism, dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADHD. Her own painful experience of being excluded and bullied throughout her childhood and adolescence motivated her to launch this campaign.
We don’t want our neurodiverse youth to feel the same here in British Columbia. We want everyone to feel supported and seen. We want everyone to have the opportunity to enjoy full and equitable participation in their communities.
That’s why, in Budget 2024, we’re making investments over three years to better support children and youth with dyslexia and autism, and also adults with developmental disabilities, through Community Living B.C. Everybody benefits when our communities are inclusive, and we value the unique perspectives and abilities of neurodivergent people.
We are committed to making British Columbia more accessible to people of all abilities. This is why we’ve introduced the Accessible B.C. Act, so that we can identify, remove and prevent barriers. Last September, as prescribed by the Accessible B.C. Regulation, more than 750 public sector organizations formed their accessibility committees and implemented their accessibility plans and feedback tools. We are working to make B.C. a more accessible and inclusive place for all.
I invite all members to join me in recognizing March 18 to 24 as Neurodiversity Celebration Week.
CARLILE CENTRE AND YOUTH
MENTAL HEALTH
CARE
T. Wat: Today I rise to echo a profound concern from the Richmond community about the proposed closure of the Carlile Centre, a vital teen mental health facility.
A Richmondite from a neighbouring constituency of mine has been deeply affected by this issue. She shared with me a moving story of how the Carlile Centre saved her daughter’s life. She has also said that this comes following attempts by them to get their MLA and government to take immediate action.
At a time when we face an acute rise in mental health challenges among our youth, the decision to close such a crucial resource is both baffling and deeply troubling. This facility represents more than just a treatment centre; it’s a beacon of hope for vulnerable teens and their families.
The absence of proper consultation and the disregard for alternative solutions have left many feeling voiceless, as we saw just a few weeks ago in the community on a similar matter. The impact of this closure on our community cannot be overstated, especially when the well-being of Richmond’s young people is at stake.
According to the resident, the centre is due to be closed this Friday. So time is of the essence. To date, she and others have gathered over 1,300 signatures, including those from health professionals, patients, families and teachers. The petition has been featured in the Richmond News and the North Shore News.
I urge the government to reconsider, to listen to the voices of those directly affected and to prioritize the mental health and safety of British Columbian youth. It is not just about keeping a facility open; it’s about saving lives and fostering a healthier future for the next generation.
DEMENTIA CARE IN COMOX VALLEY
R. Leonard: Yesterday the Alzheimer Society was here at the Legislature, reminding us that over 85,000 British Columbians are diagnosed with dementia today, and the numbers are growing — exponentially, in some cases.
Today in the Comox Valley, people have access to the care they need in a mix of private, non-profit and government-run long-term-care facilities, each with their own positive vision. This summer there will be a whole new step forward in dementia care with the opening in Comox of the eagerly awaited Providence Living at The Views, the first publicly funded beds in a dementia village in Canada.
It started in 2020, as partnerships grew, first with an agreement between Island Health and Providence Living. B.C. Housing partnered with construction financing. St. Paul’s Foundation and the Comox Valley Healthcare Foundation got on board to be part of this exciting project. It broke ground two years later.
In a few months, a 156-bed dementia village will open. Described as ground zero for a new social-relational model of care, Providence Living at The Views creates homes of 12 private rooms. These small households support freedom — freedom to move, freedom to choose and freedom to connect with people and with nature.
The built environment encircles a one-acre outdoor courtyard with walkways, seating and garden boxes. Open to the community is a bistro and a child care centre, art studio, community space and K’ómoks Nation big house. Connecting with nature, with community and with multi-generations will support residents to live their best lives.
This dementia village is a big step forward to an exciting and inclusive future for all of us.
SPORTS JOURNALISM
ACHIEVEMENTS OF EARL
SEITZ
T. Stone: It is my honour to rise today and pay tribute to a legend in the world of sports journalism, a pillar of the Kamloops community and a voice that has defined generations of sports enthusiasts, including myself, and that is Mr. Earl Seitz.
Last week the Western Hockey League awarded Earl the Bob Ridley Award for Media Excellence for the 2023-24 season. This prestigious accolade is a testament to Earl’s outstanding contributions to journalism and his unwavering dedication to the WHL.
For over five decades, Earl’s voice has been synonymous with integrity, passion and an unparalleled love for the game. Beginning his illustrious career as a DJ in Cranbrook in 1968, Earl quickly found his calling in sports broadcasting, joining us in Kamloops in 1974 as the sports director for CFJC. From the Kamloops Chiefs to the Kamloops Blazers, Earl’s narrative has been interwoven with our city’s sports legacy, capturing the hearts of fans and inspiring young athletes and broadcasters alike.
As a proud Kamloops resident and a passionate hockey enthusiast, it has been a privilege to listen to Earl’s broadcasts over the last three decades. His insightful takes and profound understanding of the game have not only enhanced our experiences as fans but have significantly contributed to our local sports culture.
His contributions extend beyond the WHL, having covered major sporting events like the Canada Summer Games, the Brier and the Kamloops International Bantam Ice Hockey Tournament. He earned the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada and was inducted into the Kamloops Sports Hall of Fame.
Earl continues to be an active member of our community. His voice may no longer be on the airwaves, but his legacy endures, inspiring future generations. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Earl Seitz on his well-deserved recognition from the WHL.
Earl, you are a true broadcast legend, and your contributions to Kamloops and the world of sports journalism will forever be cherished. Enjoy your well-deserved retirement.
GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN RICHMOND
K. Greene: Richmond is an incredible place to live, work, learn and play, and I’m lucky enough to be there raising my family with my amazing husband. I get to see firsthand, as MLA, investments in the place I love, which is pretty special.
We’re investing in schools that thousands of kids, staff and teachers are supported in, in a better school environment: Whiteside, Bridge, Mitchell, Steves, McKinney, Thompson, Maple Lane, Tait, Ferris, DeBeck, Dixon, Cook and Brighouse elementary schools and Hugh Boyd Secondary. We’re also investing in playgrounds and school food programs.
Long-term care is expanding so seniors in care can stay better connected to their loved ones in community, and 144 long-term-care and 14 hospice beds, with an adult day program and child care, are coming to Fentiman Place in Steveston.
When my family faces a medical emergency, we head to Richmond Hospital, and I am thrilled at the acute care tower replacement and expansion project that started in fall of 2021. There is a lot to be excited about this project, but so little time, so head over to VCH’s website to learn more.
Tackling housing — 27 rental housing units for women and women with children have opened in Richmond city centre, with another 25 units coming to Steveston. B.C. Housing is also redeveloping Rosewood Village, which will be over 850 units, a mix of rent-to-income, below-market and market rentals.
A growing city needs child care, and we have supported 585 new spaces and put almost $23 million in fees back in parents’ pockets since we launched the child care program.
Finally, Steveston is a fishing village at heart, and access to our harbour is critical to our economy. The province has contributed $2 million towards the cost of dredging Steveston Harbour.
There is much more than I can squeeze into two minutes: active transportation, Massey Tunnel, UPCC, Foundry, Ocean Plastics recycling. We’re investing in Richmond and delivering results.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM
AND RESPONSE TO
ISSUES
P. Milobar: The issue of antisemitism in this NDP caucus, party, cabinet and institutions goes to the core of the Premier’s responsibilities.
The Premier’s glaring double standards and outright refusal to address the issue with a comprehensive, independent review continue to send the message that antisemitism is tolerated. While the Premier delays, Jewish students are now speaking out: “We don’t feel safe being Jewish on campus anymore.”
In the light of these grave concerns, will the Premier finally act and call a fully transparent and independent inquiry into antisemitism within his government, caucus and party?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think everyone in this place can agree that hate and antisemitism have no place in B.C.
We are committed to continue to work with members of the Jewish community but all communities across this province to address racism, to address antisemitism. In fact, we’ve been doing that work for years, whether that’s increasing Holocaust-related education in schools, whether that’s making sure the prosecuting service has more tools to be able to charge people with hate crimes when they appear.
This is a commitment I think we all in this House share, and it’s important. We know there are a lot of people feeling real fear in our communities, whether it’s folks within the Jewish community or whether it’s because of Islamophobia on the rise for people in the Muslim community.
We are committed to continue to make sure that British Columbia is a safe place for everyone, no matter where they come from, no matter what they believe or no matter who they love.
The Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
P. Milobar: The minister talks about the Holocaust education changes, and those started years ago. We are talking about a lack of action by this government on antisemitic issues post–October 11, despite the warnings of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville directly to the Premier and this government about the rise.
The surge in demand for mental health services by Jewish students is a staggering 50 percent increase over last year alone. This underscores a crisis under this Premier’s watch. Alarming reports reveal that not just students but university faculty have engaged in antisemitic intimidation, revealing a culture of systemic antisemitism that this Premier cannot continue to ignore.
This next quote from one student is horrific: “My professor stated that the massacre of Jews on October 7 was justified, that the Jews got just what was coming to them.” That’s from a professor to a student, in the middle of what’s supposed to be an educational experience, in a safe place for that student. It’s not just an abhorrent statement; it’s a dangerous statement.
How long will the Premier ignore the problem and refuse to call a full, independent inquiry, as was done, rightfully so, when Indigenous patients were identified as being the subject of racism within the health care system?
Hon. R. Kahlon: A statement like that, coming from anyone, whether it’s a teacher or someone in our communities, is unacceptable — absolutely unacceptable. We know that — particularly members of the Jewish community, but not only people in the Jewish community — many of us were horrified by the images of what we saw on October 7. No one wants to see any peoples being targeted and attacked in that way.
We know that people in the Jewish community, in particular, have felt more afraid, more worried, since that incident. We’re alive to that. I think every member in this House is alive to that. We have to do the work to ensure that people here in British Columbia feel safe, whether it’s that incident the member mentioned or any other incident. That’s something we’re committed to doing.
We’re committed to working with leaders within the Jewish community and also other leaders across the province. We highlighted yesterday that the Premier met with leaders from the Jewish community on Friday — a very tough conversation, given the fact that people are feeling really afraid.
We’re going to continue to work with them, but I think it’s not only on the Jewish community. It’s the responsibility of everyone to work together to ensure that British Columbia can remain a safe place for anyone.
M. de Jong: What strikes me as incredible is that in the year 2024 we would have to ask these questions. We have to ask the questions, because despite having information about rising levels of antisemitism in high schools, in universities, the Premier didn’t do anything.
Well, he did one thing. He fired the member of his government who was calling attention to rising levels of antisemitism and making demands that something be done about it. That’s why people don’t trust the Premier and the government to investigate themselves.
Another student was attacked verbally, in this instance for wearing the Star of David. She says: “I was shouted at. I was called names and intimidated. I’m terrified to be on campus, because the university is doing nothing to stop Jews from being targeted.”
Instead of firing the single voice within his government that was calling attention to this matter, will the Premier do the right thing and commit to a fully independent investigation that examines rising levels of antisemitism, not just in society but within his own government?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Any incident we hear of the type the member shared troubles us all, I think, every member in this chamber, but I reject the member’s premise that we’ve done nothing. Since we formed government, this has been something we’ve been focused on.
Whether it was bringing back a human rights commission — a commission that was gotten rid of, which was there…. In fact, every province had one. We were the only province that didn’t have one. Why was it important, in the early days, to bring the human rights commission back? It’s because we needed that independent body to address systemic racism, systemic discrimination in our communities. They’ve been doing that work.
One of the first roles I had was to launch an anti-racism strategy. What I learned through that engagement — many leaders of the Jewish community came forward, many leaders from multiple communities came forward — was that the best way to address it is by strengthening the fabric of our communities. The stronger our communities are, the better we are to sustain and address the challenges and issues we have. That’s what we’ve been committed to do since we formed government, and we’re going to continue to do that important work.
The Premier had an excellent meeting with leaders from the Jewish community on Friday. We have taken considerable steps to address it, whether it’s expanding education around the Holocaust or strengthening the prosecution service. We have a racist incident helpline coming online this spring.
There’s a lot more to do. We’re committed to working with all members of this House to make sure that everyone feels safe in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Abbotsford West, supplemental.
M. de Jong: Regrettably, the facts tell a very different story. Yesterday we heard about a handpicked ADM for anti-racism, a former political aide to the Premier, known for her public antisemitic rhetoric. She blamed Jews for not getting a job at the UN. It was a handpicked ADM for anti-racism.
Kareem Hassib sits on the UBC Senate, but he also serves as a director within the youth wing of the B.C. NDP and has a policy role, we’re told, for the Minister of Jobs. Two days after the October 7 massacre and rape of innocent people, he took to social media to explain how it was really Israel that was to blame for the atrocities committed just a few days before.
We’ve got an ADM for anti-racism, who spouts antisemitic rhetoric and negatively stereotypes an entire nation, and a member of the UBC Senate, who occupy leadership roles within the governing party and who blame Israel for the atrocities of October 7, and the Premier fires the only voice within his government that is calling attention to rising levels of antisemitism.
Does the Premier really believe, in the face of that body of evidence, that people trust him to investigate himself, his government, his caucus? Will he do the right thing and call a truly independent investigation into this matter?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think what British Columbians see in our Premier is someone who is committed to ensuring that we have an equitable society, somebody who is committed, who is passionate in ensuring that everyone feels safe in British Columbia.
That’s what I think British Columbians see. In fact, I think most British Columbians know that about our Premier. In his early days, coming out of law school, he was fighting for the most vulnerable people in this province. That is who he was then. That is who he is today. We are really proud of him as a leader.
He has sat down with leaders from the Jewish community. He sat down with leaders from the Muslim community. He sits down with leaders from Indigenous communities. He hears, from them, the genuine challenges that they’re feeling, that they’re facing. His commitment, and our commitment, is real.
We’re going to continue to ensure that we find ways to strengthen the fabric of our communities so we can collectively address the challenges and make sure that British Columbia remains a beacon of hope across the world, a place where people can come. They can believe what they believe. They can love who they love and feel safe in doing that.
PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS
AND LOGGING
DEFERRALS
S. Furstenau: In 2021, this government appointed the technical advisory panel to identify at-risk old-growth ecosystems and prioritize areas for deferral. Last week leaked mapping data revealed that bureaucrats removed 55 percent of the large-treed old-growth areas from deferral and then substantially increased deferrals in areas with smaller and less commercially valuable trees.
It is devastating yet utterly predictable to learn that the Ministry of Forests did not follow the advice of the scientists this government tasked with identifying the most at-risk old growth in this province. Most of all, this is a failure of leadership.
The rest of the world and future generations are counting on us to save the very little rare old growth that is left in B.C. This government made a promise in 2020 to the people of B.C. to protect old growth. Here we are four years later, and that promise is not being kept.
My question is to the Premier. Why should anyone believe what this government says when it comes to protecting old-growth trees?
Hon. B. Ralston: There is no doubt that people in British Columbia feel a deep affinity for our forests and the ecological systems that support our forests throughout the province.
What we committed to in the old-growth strategic review was to take the advice of the technical advisory committee. Indeed, 1.2 million hectares were set aside. That being done, then the next step in the process, according to recommendation No. 1 of the old-growth strategic review, was to consult with First Nations. In that process….
While some First Nations supported the TAP- or technical advisory panel–identified deferrals, others said that based on their expertise and local knowledge, alternative old-growth land outside of TAP should be deferred instead. Some First Nations don’t support proposed deferrals at all and prefer to continue forest activity within their territory, and we respect that decision.
We will keep taking action, alongside First Nations communities and advocates and the sector, to conserve more ancient forests for our children and grandchildren and to support a sustainable approach to forestry.
The Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
OLD-GROWTH CONSERVATION FUNDING
S. Furstenau: It’s so fascinating how the government will say it respects the decisions of First Nations. But the nations that have said that they don’t want logging of old growth in their territories…. Those decisions are harder for this government to respect.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is accusing the Ministry of Forests of institutional capture. Environmental leaders and former high-ranking civil servants call it a betrayal in the making.
After nearly two centuries of industrial logging by timber companies, blaming First Nations for not protecting old-growth forests while offering nothing in this budget for conservation financing is simply terrible. Again, an absolute failure of leadership. Conservation financing is necessary to achieve the paradigm shift that this government committed to.
My question is to the Premier. Will he put enough conservation financing on the table so that the last old growth of the province has a chance to stay standing?
Hon. N. Cullen: I was very proud to join with many members of our government, with respect to the question of conservation financing, and sign a protocol, a tripartite protocol, as my colleagues would know, between ourselves, the federal government and First Nations here in B.C.
I believe it’s the largest conservation package in this country’s history. More than $1 billion in contributions from the philanthropic sector, from the province and from the federal government to be able to enable the conservation initiatives that my friend talks about.
We have the greatest biodiversity of any province in this country. That also means we have the greatest responsibility with respect to the protection of that biodiversity.
There’s a number of initiatives I could articulate. On this specific effort of conservation financing, we put forward $150 million. That was matched by $150 million in private money. And this is just the beginning. Our ability to stand up the conservation initiatives that Indigenous leaders are looking for will be enabled by these significant contributions.
There’s more to come. This is exciting work, and I think it is work that is legacy-building for all of us, collectively, on behalf of the citizens of this province.
MANAGEMENT OF SAFE DRUG SUPPLY
AND DIVERSION TO ILLICIT
MARKET
J. Rustad: We’ve heard from police over the last several days of several arrests, several busts, dealing with drugs and, through that, clearly, that the NDP’s safe supply drugs are now making it into the hands of gangs and drug dealers and are being sold. We’re hearing from doctors that safe supply is making its way into our schools.
To the Minister of Health, how many students in British Columbia are addicted to the safe supply. How widespread is this problem?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Thanks to the member for the question. I think everyone in this House agrees that the safety and the mental health of children and youth is of utmost importance to all of us.
I do want to really thank the RCMP for the work that they are doing, for the work that front-line law enforcement is doing, with respect to the critical work that they’re engaged in, clearly, across the province, to do everything to go after predatory drug dealers and drug traffickers to keep drugs off of our streets.
With respect to what we are seeing in terms of children and youth, I think we can take some comfort in what we are hearing from experts. It indicates that we are not seeing an increase in opioid use disorder amongst children and youth, notwithstanding that, of course, we did see from the McCreary adolescent health survey other concerns that we are addressing, in terms of a rise in concerns around mental health issues for youth that we are investing in through significant investments for Foundry services, for access to mental health services for children and youth.
That’s work we’ll keep doing with partners and with our health system.
The Speaker: Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.
J. Rustad: Well, there certainly wasn’t an answer to the question with regards to how many and how widespread this problem is. Perhaps a different approach should be thought about here.
To the Minister of Education: clearly, your colleague has downplayed just how widespread this problem is.
Can the Minister of Education name one school district in this province that does not have a problem with safe supply being diverted into the schools?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, when it comes to the work that we are doing collaboratively and across government on issues related to child and youth mental health…. In fact, we’re working very closely, across our health system, with our education system to ensure that children and youth have access to the supports and services they need.
We have a mental health in schools strategy that is designed precisely to provide access for children and youth to those supports. We have a number of school districts who operate the PreVenture program, which is specifically designed to identify those youth who may be at risk of developing a substance use disorder and intervening to provide those supports.
This work is work that we are very much engaged in with school district partners and with experts in child and youth mental health across our health system.
ACCESS TO OBSTETRICS CARE AND
PRENATAL SERVICES IN
KAMLOOPS
T. Stone: In the Kamloops area, expectant mothers are once again being subjected to the stress and the worry of not being able to access the prenatal care that they need.
The First Steps early pregnancy clinic, which sees well over 60 new pregnancies every month, is desperately trying to avoid running out of money, since this NDP government has only funded them to March 31.
Now, this NDP-manufactured funding uncertainty is causing extreme stress for mothers like Jordyn Jeffrey, who is pregnant with her first child and desperate after her plea for obstetrics care was recently declined. She says: “I was told that I have to go to Salmon Arm or Vernon, which is crazy to me in a city of our size.”
My question is this. Will the Premier remove this funding uncertainty today so that there’s no disruption to the critical prenatal services that are desperately needed by hundreds of expectant mothers in Kamloops and surrounding communities?
Hon. A. Dix: Of course, the member will know, because we’ve been working on the issues around maternity care in Kamloops over the last year, that very significant supports and investments have been put in place for doctors, for nurses, for midwifery, and we’re going to continue to act to support expectant mothers in Kamloops.
The member has raised this issue with us, and we’re working hard to ensure that the people of Kamloops get the care they deserve. We made very significant investments, the member will know, in increasing doctors and nurses and health care services in Kamloops, and we’re going to continue to do so.
The Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, Mr. Speaker, this funding issue is exactly what happened to a different obstetrics clinic one year ago in Kamloops, when the TRFO clinic also faced funding uncertainty that went on for months and months.
Fast-forward to today — same issue, same minister, same robotic answer. Since the First Steps Early Pregnancy Clinic opened in September of 2023, nearly 400 expectant mothers from Kamloops and the surrounding communities have been able to receive the prenatal care they need. This is all at risk for hundreds of expectant moms moving forward because the NDP government will not solve this funding issue today. The funding runs out in a little over two weeks from today.
I would remind the Minister of Health that in Kamloops, two in five Kamloopsians do not have a family doctor either. Now, this leaves expectant mothers like Tighe Morrow in the lurch. She lives in Vavenby, two hours north of Kamloops. She’s facing a breech pregnancy. She’s being told that her only options are a C-section or travelling down to Vancouver for up to five weeks.
Tighe says: “To not have the options and be really forced into a major surgery without having any alternatives is really scary. It really makes you think twice about where you’re living and the health care here.”
Why is the Premier denying expectant mothers like Tighe the prenatal care that she deserves and that she should receive in Kamloops? Will the Premier today solve this funding issue for this critical obstetrics clinic in Kamloops?
Hon. A. Dix: What the government has done is take action, as we did last year, as we continue to do, to bring more doctors, to bring more nurse practitioners, to bring more nurses, health sciences professionals, to add services in Kamloops and everywhere else. That’s what we’ll continue to do in this case.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES
IN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
L. Doerkson: Cariboo Memorial Hospital’s often dire circumstances under the NDP has life-or-death consequences for our community. I’ve written to the minister twice about my now-deceased constituent Lee Butler, a horror story of severe neglect and deplorable conditions.
I’ve just delivered to the Premier and to the Minister of Health images that his daughter Sheila has shared with me of her father left to lie in a hospital bed with his feet and legs hanging over the rails of the bed to avoid laying in his own filth and soiled sheets. Our front-line workers are overwhelmed. This is not their fault. This lies with the Premier’s office.
Looking at these photos, how is this in any way acceptable in any hospital in this province? When will the Premier take responsibility for the lack of basic care and dignity inflicted upon Lee Butler and countless others in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Dix: The member knows that whenever he raises an issue with me, he gets an immediate response, as he will in this case.
I think what we see around British Columbia is very significant progress in terms of the recruitment of family doctors. Our focus has been on taking action, though — for example, with respect to emergency rooms, the locum program of which there are 187 participants now; our nurse connect programs around B.C., which do the same, which significantly invest in rural B.C.
You’ve seen the investments in the last few weeks with respect to rural retention bonuses in communities such as Williams Lake and others, and we’re going to continue to take those steps.
I personally, as the member will know, have been to Williams Lake, met with doctors and nurses and health sciences professionals and health care workers and patients in that community. We’re going to continue to support our outstanding health care staff and professionals in Williams Lake.
R. Merrifield: The minister missed the point. This patient is deceased. My colleague did reach out, not once, but twice. For the minister to then discount it by saying that there will be some response, it’s too late. It’s too late.
Hopefully, it’s not too late for Sarah. She’s a mother of four, a wife and a former business owner. She shared with me her devastating experience with our broken health care system: “I am now a mere shell, withering away, while our medical system turns a blind eye to the urgency of my situation. I am literally dying in front of my family’s eyes. This is unequivocally wrong, and no one deserves this.”
Her inability to access timely and effective medical care is a damning indictment on the failed state of health care under this Premier and under this minister.
How many more patients like Sarah have to suffer before British Columbians get access to the health care they need and deserve?
Hon. A. Dix: The member talked about the case where someone passed away. I was referring — I think everyone in the House heard me — to the information the member passed me two minutes before question period. So that’s what I was referring to. I think that all members of the House will know that when people provide me with information, I work on the cases all the time, every time, and in every case.
I appreciate that in our health care system, which serves everyone in B.C., which led the world in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, where we’re making unprecedented investments…. Some of those investments are improving services with respect to family doctors, with nurse practitioners, to team-based care.
We’re going to continue to take action in every case. In cases that are brought to my attention, that consistently happens. I think that’s the experience of most members of the House. Also, in general, to improve the number of doctors, we’ve done that by working with doctors. To improve the number of nurses, we’ve worked with nurses.
Members don’t have to worry. There will be another question.
We’re going to continue to make those efforts.
T. Halford: When his 88-year-old mother-in-law tripped on a curb outside of Dollarama at Westminster Highway and Blanshard Drive this past weekend, Richmond resident Rick Pollon had to wait 2½ hours for an ambulance to show up. The senior was left sitting in a parking lot with a broken hip.
Rick says: “She’s sitting on concrete, 88 years old and freezing cold, and it’s starting to rain.” Rick was forced to buy blankets from the dollar store to try and keep his mother dry until an ambulance showed up.
Other stories. We hear of Michelle Hart, a 77-year-old mother who was transported from Clearwater to Royal Inland Hospital with convulsions. What happened there? She was given a prescription for brain swelling and left with no ride home, no place to stay, and nobody to help her.
These stories are becoming all too common across this province. The minister knows this. The Premier knows this. The seniors of British Columbia know this because they are being let down every single day by this minister, this Premier and this government.
Does this minister find it acceptable that a senior is on the concrete in Richmond for 2½ hours, laying with a broken hip? So 2½ hours to wait for an ambulance. Does the minister accept that, yes or no?
Hon. A. Dix: Clearly, I don’t accept it, and BCEHS has responded in this case. But I would say….
The members opposite want an answer to the question. Here’s the answer.
In 2017, when I became Minister of Health, 70 percent of our ambulance staff across B.C. — 70 percent — were casual. We’ve increased the number of full-time paramedics from 1,500 to 2,500 in five years — 1,500 to 2,500.
We’ve reduced wait times in critical aspects of care, including responses to purple and red calls — reduced those wait times in a time when the population of British Columbia has risen by 800,000 and the number of red and purple calls has increased by 25 percent in those periods.
We have transformed, by working with our ambulance paramedics, the Ambulance Service from a service that was casual and especially inadequate in rural B.C., which is a legacy of 16 years of policies, to one where we responded and transformed the service, putting unprecedented investments in it.
Yes, every time an issue arises, every time…. As the members know, calls are triaged. Every time an issue arises and it’s raised, it is addressed, as it has been by B.C. emergency health services in this case.
We’ll continue to invest in our ambulance service, to deal with the inadequate legacy of the previous government in that regard…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Hon. A. Dix: …and continue to make unprecedented investments, because people in every community in British Columbia deserve an ambulance. When they call an ambulance, they should get one in an appropriate time. That’s what we’re going to continue to act to do.
[End of question period.]
Point of Order
B. Banman: I rise on a point of order. Yesterday information provided to this House by the Solicitor General was inaccurate. I’m here to read from a letter from Chief Harley Chappell of the SEMYOME First Nation. It’s dated December 15, 2022.
“Despite many requests to the federal and provincial governments, SEMYOME First Nation has not….”
The Speaker: Member.
The member is reserving his spot to raise a point of order. Then we can deal with that later on.
B. Banman: Very good. I would then ask to table this letter.
The Speaker: Proceed.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 7 — SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
POVERTY REDUCTION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
The Chair: All right, Members. We are here with Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, and we will be resuming with clause 11.
On clause 11 (continued).
A. Olsen: With respect to the agreements that are referenced in section 11, I’m just wondering if these agreements will be made public.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The answer is yes.
A. Olsen: Can the minister outline…? I recognize that from the discussion that happened yesterday, there is no such agreement currently being considered. So this is, I think, preparatory work, getting ready for the potential of engagement between the province and First Nations in this.
Just wondering what the ministry considers…. What information would need to be provided by the Indigenous governing body, and what would those agreements look like?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Yes, as the member says, these provisions are enabling. We don’t have any active requests. I don’t want to presuppose what might be the framework or the approach that an IGB or First Nation that would approach our government to make these….
This is, again, as I said yesterday, our opportunity to open up the act. This is the opportunity to align with DRIPA. Without any active requests coming to us, the ground is fertile for this work and will be guided by our nation-to-nation relationship.
A. Olsen: I’m just wondering, though, in terms of…. I think it would be good, for the record, to hear from the minister and from the ministry about what types of agreements….
I recognize and preface this question, recognizing there is no agreement currently being considered and that, whatever the minister’s answer is, it will not be, obviously, a fulsome response to all of the types of agreements. But as we’re looking at opening the act up to consider agreement-making, I think having something on the record as to what the government might be thinking about or considering what agreements might be in the interest of the government and a First Nation….
This would be the first time that this happens. I’m just trying to get an understanding, to get some clarity, of what kind of agreements, recognizing that it won’t be all of them, could be considered under this section.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll say again, as I did yesterday, that we as a government are not imagining specific agreements. It’s not the interests of our government that would be advanced by taking up this power. It’s the interests of the nation and without any requests than it is….
What I’m going to describe are some of the mechanical pieces. I really don’t want it to be misunderstood that we are getting ahead of any requests or that this is an interest of government. Right now, if a nation wanted to talk with my ministry about a section 6 or 7 agreement, we don’t have the statutory ability to do that, even to enter the conversation.
Unlike other ministries, for example, MCFD or some of the resource decision-making agreements that have already happened — those are active, real examples — we don’t have any requests. I want to be just super clear. I don’t want to imply to the nations, or to any Indigenous governing body, that this is an interest of our government or that we are trying to get ahead of them. We’re going to be responsive.
I will go into the mechanical pieces. These provisions in clause 11 enable joint and consent-based decision-making agreements, but it is up to the Indigenous governing bodies to determine what decisions they would be interested in sharing. The examples that I’ll give are, again, just what lines up with the act — not indications that we’ve had from nations that they want to go down this path. This is so that we can have discussions about a broad range of decision-making agreements.
Agreements under section 7 of the Declaration Act refer to statutory powers of decision. That means: “a power or a right conferred by an enactment to make a decision deciding or prescribing the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities of a person,” or in section (b), “the eligibility of a person to receive, or to continue to receive, a benefit or licence, whether or not the person is legally entitled to it, and includes the powers of the Provincial Court.”
Examples, under the Section 7 agreements, could be section 4 of the EAA. The minister may provide income assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit. In section 5 of the EAA, the minister may provide hardship assistance to a family unit. In section 59 of the EAR, the minister may provide a crisis supplement. They’re examples of things that could be covered in a section 7 agreement.
Agreements under section 6 of the Declaration Act, in the EAA and EAPWDA context, are agreements related to the minister’s powers or duties given by law. The intent is to capture all the minister’s powers and duties under the BCEA act, including those that aren’t now explicit in the legislation.
Examples there could be section 9 of the EAA, where the minister can require a recipient to enter into an employability plan and can specify conditions in that plan to which the recipient must comply, and section 10 of the EAA: the minister can direct an applicant or recipient to supply the minister with information or verification of information.
Another example would be section 80 of the EAR. The minister must reconsider a decision on request of a person.
A. Olsen: I’m assuming when we’re talking about EAA, we’re not talking about the Environmental Assessment Act. I’m joking, of course.
I guess one of the most challenging things that we deal with in British Columbia is the poverty level within First Nations communities. Every First Nation community that I know of is really challenged with tackling the extreme poverty that is the result of all sorts of things that I’ve talked about in here as a member, as someone who grew up on an Indian reserve in this province.
One of the key roles of this ministry is around poverty reduction. Employment assistance is one part of that, which is the EAA that we are talking about in here. As I was considering this power, this clause 11, adding the ability for the ministry to engage with First Nations around creating agreements that, ultimately, I think, could….
I really also want to engage this section. We’re really just exploring. We’re not having a discussion or limiting the potentials here. But I think that in the area of self-determination, something we are considering as of importance when it comes to the Declaration Act, the ability for this ministry to delegate some of the powers of the minister to a First Nation to undertake economic assistance or employment assistance for their members within the community…. Rather than having to engage a provincial government directly, the nation or the Indian band can engage with the provincial government, and the members can engage locally.
I am just wondering if that is something that’s considered in this — that perhaps a First Nation may want to come to the provincial government and say: “We are going to lead the poverty reduction and employment assistance on behalf of our members and liaise with the province, rather than having our members liaise with the province.”
Is that something that could be considered within this new clause 11?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think where the member is going is what I answered in the previous question of the list of a number of places where sections 6 and 7 agreements could affect service delivery. To be clear, this isn’t only….
I already have the ability to delegate service delivery or decision-making, what sections 6 and 7 agreements are much more about at a government-to-government level, envisioning what that nation wants for their people, designing something together. So this is broader than delegation.
A. Olsen: As has been pointed out, this agreement-making commitment that the provincial government has made and that the Declaration Act enables, not just in 6 and 7 but in other sections of the Declaration Act, have been made controversial. I don’t know that they’re necessarily as controversial as they’ve been made to be.
However, I think it provides certainty for the provincial government, the body that we represent in here, and it provides certainty for Indigenous people. That certainty then creates a greater level of certainty across our communities, which is, I think, what people and what business and what the interests of everybody….
I recognize that it goes past the delegation piece, and I just want to, I think, make this statement: that because we’re here debating this section of the bill or this clause in the bill, I think it’s important to acknowledge that as we sign these agreements, resources go with them. We’ve seen in other examples where not just powers are delegated, but relationships are created, and it’s left on First Nations, then, to pick up the slack without the resources, the financial resources or the fiscal tools in order to be able to actually do the work.
So we’ve shifted the responsibility, but the resources have not followed, and neither have the fiscal tools been made available so that First Nations can generate their own source revenues in order to be able to pay for what the provincial government had done before.
I think we’re going to be…. We debated this back in 2022, when it came to the Child, Family and Community Services Act, and it’s just really important that the provincial government isn’t passing off the responsibility to First Nations without the ability to actually pay for the programs and services that come with it.
I just wanted to take the opportunity at this point in the debate to make that statement here, and I think that this is an exciting opportunity for First Nations to continue to take responsibility for the services within their communities. I appreciate that there’s not really anything we can specifically talk about in this case, but I just wanted to make that statement here.
Clauses 11 to 14 inclusive approved.
On clause 15.
M. de Jong: My colleague from the Peace has asked, while he attends to responsibilities in another chamber, if I would pose several questions that he wanted to explore were he able to be here.
This is probably a very technical question. Clause 15 purports, as I see it, to repeal section 36 of the existing act. Is the rationale for that…? Section 36 represents a transitional measure relating to appeals that existed under the Employment and Assistance Act. Are we to understand that there are no eligible or potentially eligible appeals left or that might arise for which this section would be relevant?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: This references section 36. It refers to a policy that is from the 2002 legislation, the previous government, which limited income assistance to 24 months for families without children and reduced assistance, after this time, for families with children.
Our government has no intention to deny or reduce assistance after a specific time period for families who would otherwise be eligible, so we are repealing these provisions.
M. de Jong: I’ll just explore that quickly.
First of all, I want to make sure, having injected myself into the proceedings, that I’m referring to the right section of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. We are talking about repealing section 36 of that act. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think you might be ahead of us.
We are on clause 15, which is amending the Employment and Assistance Act.
The Chair: Just to be clear, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act starts at clause 20.
M. de Jong: Right. Thank you to the minister. I just want to verify. I think the minister’s answer says the section that is being repealed is no longer required, and there are no other cases presently in the system that would require that provision.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: No. Our government has not been using this section of the legislation to deny assistance to an income assistance recipient with children, so there is nobody in the system to whom this provision would apply.
Clause 15 approved.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Clause 15 having passed, I wonder if we can turn to the amendment that the member made yesterday, the Leader of the Third Party, because I want to make sure he hears my thoughts while he is still in the chamber. Is that appropriate?
On clause 2 (continued).
The Chair: So we’ll be going back then to clause 2, which had been stood down. I believe a proposed amendment was moved. I don’t have it in front of me. But I do now.
All right. So did the Minister want to address that directly?
On the amendment (continued).
Hon. S. Malcolmson: To the member: I thank you for the amendment. I recognize the spirit in which it was intended.
Having taken the night to consult with my staff, I’m not going to be supporting the amendment. I touched on some of the reasons for that yesterday, but I think it’s helpful to summarize them here.
The first piece to say is that our income assistance system is built on a foundation of reciprocity. We provide clients with financial supports and support to assist them on the path to employability. In return, we expect clients to work with us, so that we can understand their needs, to collaborate with us, to develop suitable employability plans, to do their best to meet conditions of their employability plan, and that’s the reciprocity that’s built into the system.
So requiring clients to participate in the client’s needs assessment, enter into an employment plan, specifying conditions in an employability plan or amending, suspending or cancelling an employability plan are all administrative decisions. They are necessary for the administration of the employment and assistance program.
It is my belief that it’s not appropriate that all decisions that are necessary for administering a program that serves over 200,000 clients are subject to appeal. However, any subsequent decision that affects the amount of the client’s assistance or eligibility for assistance is subject to reconsideration by ministry staff and appeal to the independent Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal.
I note there are other pieces of provincial legislation that have similar provisions that make decisions of a statutory authority final and conclusive and not open to review. That would include the Residential Tenancy Act; the Hospital Act; Land Title and Survey Authority Act; Crime Victim Assistance Act; and the Laboratory Services Act, and there are more. This approach in this legislation is consistent with those other programs, and I think having an inconsistency might create unintended consequences.
As I said also yesterday, this is not a change from how section 9 works now. When we conducted extensive consultations on our employment and assistance framework, we heard from over 10,000 people across the province. We asked advocates and clients about barriers to our programs. The inability to appeal these administrative decisions, decisions that don’t affect the amount of assistance or the eligibility for assistance, was not raised.
In conclusion, if all of these administrative decisions are subject to reconsideration, to appeal to the tribunal and appeal to the courts, we potentially create a burden for the ministry, the independent tribunal and the courts to review administrative decisions that do not affect the amount of assistance or eligibility for assistance.
Again, those decisions that do have financial consequences for clients are subject to reconsideration. They’re subject to appeal to the tribunal, and they’re subject to judicial review by the courts.
The Chair: House Leader, Third Party, on the proposed amendment.
A. Olsen: Yeah. Thank you. I hadn’t had a chance to speak to the amendment yet. The clause was stood down. So I just hope I have the opportunity to speak to my amendment.
In the discussion yesterday…. I don’t have the transcripts right in front of me, so I’m relying on memory. But my memory serves me correctly here. The minister outlined that there’s a considerable amount of work that’s done between the government worker and the client in order to set, with respect to the employability plan, and to put in place services and supports for the clients in order to be able to create a pathway towards employability for people.
The way the minister described it was that there was a considerable amount of effort that was done between the case worker, and excuse me if I don’t have their title exactly right, and the client who’s brought the case to the government. As I pointed out in the debate yesterday, subsection 5 of this allows the minister to amend, suspend or cancel an employability plan outright. Then subsection 6 removes the ability of the client to then be able to challenge that, as the minister just referenced it, administrative decision.
We talked at some length yesterday with respect to the power imbalance that exists in this situation. All through this overhaul, as the minister has referenced it, there is very strong, and at times very paternalistic, language where “the client must,” or “the client is required to” or “the client is compelled to” do things that the ministry and the minister suggest that that client need do.
As the minister referenced reciprocity, the challenge I have with supporting this change, this overhaul, as it is, is that what it does is it removes the ability…. Once all of that work has been done together — the caseworker and the client — the minister and the ministry are able to cancel that work without any recourse, without any reciprocity necessary, without any explanation. They are able to amend that work without explanation.
It’s pretty cut and dried. The minister may, at any time, amend, suspend or cancel an employability plan, and then that client can’t go and seek recourse against all of that work that has been done.
What this leads to is an unfairness that isn’t necessary and is unfair, really, to the client. The burden the minister suggests would be placed on government is currently the burden that is carried entirely by the client. So I think it’s really clear, and I think we need to support this, because as the minister has just suggested, the government doesn’t want to carry any of the burden of the decision. So that’s exactly what subsection 6 is doing. It’s making sure that the burden is not carried by government, that the burden is carried entirely by the client.
I think that it’s important to acknowledge that there’s no way for us to know, in what the minister just suggested in referencing a number of other acts, whether this section is or is not consistent with those other acts. There might be similar clauses, but the impact of those sections may or may not be consistent. There’s no way to actually test that in this discussion.
I agree that these are administrative decisions, and I agree that there is a burden. I don’t believe that it’s fair to have the burden be entirely put on the individual, especially when, as the minister’s description yesterday was very clear….
In fact, the minister’s description of the process and of the supports and of the work that’s done between the client and the government worker further solidified my belief that we need to pass the amendment to strike subsection 6 and to put the onus and the burden onto government to ensure that the decisions that are made in subsection 5 — to amend, to suspend or to cancel an employability plan — are not offered this protection but, instead, can be challenged, because there is a considerable amount of effort expended.
There might be financial resources expended in it, so, therefore, it would be just unfair for the government to create a pathway that they’re walking along with the client and then, at any time, suspend it, amend it or cancel it without there being the recourse on behalf of the client to challenge that decision, which I think is fair.
I hope that the members of this House support the amendment.
The Chair: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment, all in favour of the proposed amendment to clause 2 of Bill 7?
Division has been called.
Just for our guests in the gallery, we’re conducting a vote at this time, so you know what’s happening.
I do want to welcome the Oaklands Elementary, which has just arrived, on behalf of the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.
Thank you, everyone, and we’ll be doing our voting shortly.
All right, Members. We’re here for the proposed amendment to Bill 7, clause 2, moved by the House Leader of the Third Party, striking out subsection (6).
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 24 | ||
de Jong | Doerkson | Milobar |
Stone | Bond | Halford |
Bernier | Davies | Furstenau |
Olsen | Banman | Morris |
Kyllo | Shypitka | Sturko |
Merrifield | Wat | Kirkpatrick |
Stewart | Ashton | Sturdy |
Letnick | Tegart | Walker |
NAYS — 48 | ||
Parmar | A. Singh | Babchuk |
Coulter | Lore | Chow |
Beare | Kang | Heyman |
Osborne | Cullen | Bains |
Malcolmson | Bailey | Mercier |
Brar | Russell | Routledge |
Starchuk | Rice | Phillip |
Yao | Leonard | R. Singh |
Whiteside | Farnworth | Kahlon |
Conroy | Sharma | Dix |
Popham | Fleming | Rankin |
Ralston | Sims | Simons |
Elmore | Routley | D’Eith |
Donnelly | Greene | Anderson |
Chant | Sandhu | Dykeman |
Paddon | Begg | Chen |
Hon. R. Fleming: With the indulgence of the House, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. R. Fleming: In the gallery, joining us today, are 31 guests from beautiful Oaklands Elementary School in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake — grade 5 students with their teacher, Christopher Purnell, and some adult guests as well. They’ve just watched us vote here this afternoon, and they’re going to learn more about the Legislative Assembly in the coming hours.
I would ask the House to make all of these young minds most welcome here.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
Welcome.
If folks want to make their way, we’re going to, I think, be moving to adjourn on this committee at this stage, given the time.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,135,439,000 (continued).
T. Stone: I appreciate the opportunity to slide myself in to just ask a few highways-related questions. I appreciate that my colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock has made time for this. It’s important to the residents up the North Thompson Valley.
I really just want to understand today, with a few questions, what the residents from north of Kamloops, through Barriere and Clearwater and even, perhaps, north through Vavenby and up Highway 5…. What can residents, actually, reasonably expect to see in terms of improvements that are coming?
The minister doesn’t need to get into the details around the CVSE pullout that was announced the other day. I’m aware of that piece.
It has been, basically, since 2017 that a new passing lane was actually added to the corridor. The minister and I did canvass these questions last year. I asked similar questions.
I’ll start with this. Can the minister confirm that there will be new passing lanes actually built on Highway 5 between Kamloops and north of Clearwater? If so, how many passing lanes? What’s the amount earmarked, the budget amount, and what’s the time frame for adding these critical passing lanes into the infrastructure on Highway 5 north of Kamloops?
Hon. R. Fleming: I appreciate the member’s interest in this. It’s obviously a very important corridor for his constituents.
We have been working with a number of key elected officials that the member knows quite well, including a number of mayors and elected Chiefs in the corridor, having regular meetings with them, soliciting ideas. Some of which have been implemented in 2023. Some of which are planned for 2024 and beyond.
I’ll go through a few of them, although I’m certain he knows of some of them. Apologies for any redundancy. We also canvassed this a little bit with the member for Prince George–Valemount.
We did complete 80 kilometres of rumble strips, as one of the safety initiatives, from McLure to Louis Creek and from Blackwater Road to Birch Island Road.
The safety risk and evaluation that was done led us to purchase and install electronic curve warning signs at Exlou and Percha’s Corner. Those are installed.
There was interest from our engineers and from the mayors and others in the corridor in overhead digital messaging systems that advise of current winter road conditions and basically display updatable messages that can speak to conditions or just remind drivers of speed limits and those sorts of things. So southbound overhead digital reading message signage at the junction of Highway 24 was installed.
Lowering speed because of the…. Police investigations on some crashes generally found speed to be a contributing factor in most of those instances. We created a reduced winter speed zone of 80 kilometres, which lasts for three kilometres through Fishtrap canyon, based on the data that we were seeing. That is still in place for the remainder of the winter season.
We know more action is needed. A tender is now closed for a CVSE pullout 12 kilometres south of Barriere for southbound travel. We’re installing a roadside barrier at Purchase Corner. A pedestrian crosswalk and island reconfiguration at Clearwater Village Road has been completed. More robust preparing of pavement on an ongoing basis. When we get through the freeze-thaw cycle of this winter, we will be in the corridor making those types of repairs.
The other thing that is coming in the next few months is a safety and engineering review that we committed to. That is for the entire length of the corridor. It will inform a number of potential projects, including passing lanes, which the member asked about. We are, outside of that process, doing a separate standalone engineering study on passing lanes just south of Barriere, and we’re finalizing the costing for that right now. That’s in the workplan of the ministry.
T. Stone: I’ll start my next question by also acknowledging the very extensive contributions of the Simpcw First Nation, the other locally elected officials up and down the corridor. The minister is quite right. There has been tremendous advocacy, and that’s happening in the communities and the regional district.
These are the same elected officials that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and myself meet with on a fairly regular basis. I don’t think there’s likely any daylight between what the minister is hearing from these elected officials and what we’re hearing.
I would suggest that the list of improvements that the minister just rattled off, while appreciated, is not going to meaningfully improve the safety through the corridor, based on the volumes of traffic that we have seen continue to significantly escalate. As a subset of that escalated traffic, we’re seeing…. There’s more commercial truck traffic than we have ever seen before.
The prevalence of accidents, the fatalities, the reality…. When you talk to locals who live through this corridor — often multi-generational families that have lived there for many, many years — they will tell you they have never, ever felt more unsafe than they do these days with respect to Highway 5, mainly from south of Barriere through to north of Clearwater. Again, there are volumes that are driving these escalations in collisions and fatalities.
What the locals are asking for, what the locally electeds are asking for, is a comprehensive safety plan that addresses a whole number of different facets. They’re looking for action, obviously, on infrastructure.
As a former Minister of Transportation myself, I completely understand the importance and the value of rumble strips, roadside barrier, improved signage, digital sign boards. I was very proud to launch the variable speed limit technology in the province, which the current government has continued to roll out in other parts of the province.
These are all tools that do enhance safety, but this corridor needs a significant investment of capital, from an infrastructure perspective. We’re talking about passing lanes. We’re talking about widening the road. We’re talking about cutting sections of corners out, so that there are much better sight lines.
The minister, in his previous answer, indicated that there are a couple of separate reviews, it sounds like. There’s a passing-lane study looking at the passing lane south of Barriere, with a goal, I would assume, of coming up with some options there and some costing. Then there’s a broader corridor study, which is looking at the entire Highway 5 corridor and would identify, through that review, priorities for investment moving forward.
The problem with all of this — again, I was the previous minister, before the change of government seven years ago: there have been numerous corridor studies done. I was part of these corridor studies. I saw them; I read them. I knew what was in the plan. The challenges were all well identified. It has been seven years. There hasn’t been a single net new passing lane added in the seven years of this government. The last one was built, by our government, at Vinsulla in 2016, at 5 million bucks.
What the locals are saying and what the locally elected are saying — the people in Barriere, Clearwater, in the regional district and all the surrounding communities — is that they need to see a significant investment in infrastructure from this government.
We’ve proposed to add three passing lanes, over the next four years, and the locations of those passing lanes would be identified very, very quickly. I would suggest that the Ministry of Transportation knows where the top three most impactful locations would be for passing lanes on this Highway 5 corridor. There doesn’t need to be a corridor-wide analysis and a study. That has all been done. It’s time to move forward with actually building these passing lanes.
We invested almost $30 million in passing lanes in five different projects between 2013 and 2016. I can read those into the record if the minister would like. Again, that near-$30 million of investment in passing lanes has been mirrored with zero dollars of investment in passing lanes under this government.
To the minister, what does he say to the residents and to the people that live in this valley that literally don’t feel safe anymore, driving Highway 5? Often they have to. Whether it’s going in and out of Kamloops for appointments, taking their kids to hockey practice or whatever, or they’re ranching sector and they’re on that road all the time, up and down the corridor, they don’t feel safe using it anymore, especially in the winter months, especially at night. What’s most needed is a significant financial commitment to investing in improved infrastructure. That starts with passing lanes.
We’ve committed to doing three over the next four years, should we form the next government. I’d like to know why this government doesn’t even really have any capital in the budget for one additional passing lane, but rather is choosing to review, study and look into it more, when everybody knows what needs to happen. It’s just political will, and a financial commitment, that’s required from this government to actually make it happen.
Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I would say this. When a number of mayors wanted to have conversations about the 5N….
This really started after the Coquihalla sustained damage, and there was significant disruption following the atmospheric rivers, combined with construction of a pipeline, combined with a large active construction project at Kicking Horse Canyon, phase 4, which had posted traffic diversions. There were a number of disruptions on the network that combined circumstances to put pressure on the 5N.
What the mayors wanted was immediate action from the province on a number of things. They had some ideas, and they wanted to hear some of our ideas. The list that I read out of actions that have been completed in a short period of time, I think details the intent and the action and the responsiveness of the ministry to things that are tangible safety improvements, that improve the visual identification of the highway, that improve driver behaviour and therefore improve safety.
Some of the mayors, not surprisingly, were interested in intersection safety in their town limits. We worked on those projects as well.
While that was going on, we have conducted an additional study, an engineering costing, detailed analysis, of an additional passing-lane project south of Barriere — which, by the way, was identified as the biggest priority, because of the gap in distance in that corridor to the next passing-lane opportunity.
That’s what we’re working on. We hope to have something costed and, therefore, announced. I know, as a former minister, he knows how this works. You have to go through those processes to understand what the project looks like and then secure a firm to build it for you.
The other thing that was very important, too, was enforcement. The mayors and the First Nations Chiefs in the corridor felt that there weren’t enough eyes and enforcement activity on the corridor. So we flooded the zone with CVSE officers, and we worked with the RCMP to step up their enforcement activity.
What we found was the suspicions of mayors and some of the anecdotal reports that they were relaying to us were in fact true. Excessive speeding was happening a lot. Erratic driving behaviour was witnessed and pulled over and fined. Enforcement happened on a daily basis for weeks and months at a time to send out a very clear message that the 5N is not some kind of a detour bypass, where you can rip through and put people in jeopardy. We’re going to continue that enforcement. That is ongoing.
The other thing that the member might be interested in that’s unique is a new technological safety innovation. This will be the first highway corridor to feature it, and you may get complaints about it. It is not cameras and fines, but it is surveillance and analysis of driver behaviour. It’s called speed-over-distance data-collection system.
That will be in place in the very near future on that corridor. It will give us very thorough data on exactly what the traffic patterns are like, who’s driving and what their average speed over distance in fact is.
It will give us unique insights into that highway. We expect to use that technology, from the pilot on the 5N, probably in some other locations that have similar challenges in the province.
The last thing I’ll say is that we are monitoring data now and with the new systems that we’ll have in place to see if volumes are going down on the 5N. Obviously, the Coquihalla was usable after 35 days and fully completed some months later in terms of its functionality.
The pipeline project is complete and demobilized now. Kicking Horse Canyon is now substantially complete and open 24-seven for traffic. So some of the DriveBC warnings that may have influenced people to use the 5N are no longer recommending that. That may take commercial traffic off the 5N, we hope. We’re looking at that and reporting back to the mayors on the corridor about what we’re learning.
T. Stone: I certainly will watch and pay close attention to the speed-over-distance technology that the minister just mentioned. I am aware of the technology. It will be interesting to see its application here and the public reaction to that and what it actually looks like. It’s similar to the work that I know is underway looking at the feasibility of installing mandatory speed limiter technology in commercial trucks.
Again, there are going to be folks that are going to think that’s a great idea. There will be others less so. And there are some potential unintended consequences, too, that I’m certain the ministry is aware of as they assess that potential implementation — as with dash cams in commercial trucks, and so forth. These are all important conversations to have, I think, about potential options that would be largely about enhancing safety, not just with the commercial space but elsewhere.
With respect to enforcement, I do understand that the CVSE enforcement has been increased at times. And what we’re hearing from locals — and we happen to agree with them — is that heightened CVSE enforcement needs to be a permanent fixture, not just a few months here and a few months there. So we’re encouraging the government to focus on that.
We’ve suggested a CVSE inspection station similar to the Red Rock model south of Prince George, as opposed to just a simple CVSE pullout. I understand the focus on mobile enforcement versus fixed enforcement, but on this corridor, again, with the volumes of commercial traffic, we happen to think that a fixed, permanent CVSE inspection station, 24-seven surveillance, much like the Red Rock, is the way to go.
We also encourage this government…. I know this is not directly this minister’s responsibility, but the highway patrol…. There have been lots of concerns raised by locals about how much of those four FTEs that people talk about…. How much of those four FTE highway patrol are actually on the corridor at any given day?
We’ve committed to enhancing, on a permanent basis, the RCMP enforcement, ensuring that, at minimum, those four FTEs are filled 24-seven, year-round.
I want to come back, just as my final question…. I just want to underscore again that I think the residents of the North Thompson are extremely disappointed that after a lot of advocacy from a lot of people over a lot of years, the ministry may move forward with a new passing lane. This one, it sounds like, would be south of Barriere. It’s a great, big corridor with a huge volume of traffic. It needs more than one passing lane.
The minister is right. It takes time to do these things, to plan them and build them. But there was no planning and building for the last seven years, so there’s a bit of a backlog now. It’s important for the government to catch up.
I’ll reiterate. Our former government built passing lanes at Darfield in 2013. That was $14½ million. Chappel Creek southbound passing lane in 2015 for $2.37 million. Camp Creek southbound passing lane in 2015 for $2.98 million.
Chappel Creek northbound passing lane in 2016 for $3.23 million. And Vinsulla passing lane, 2016, for $5.07 million. That’s almost $30 million. It’s almost like one passing lane or one passing lane project per year in the time that I was the minister. So we strongly urge the minister to accelerate the implementation of passing lanes and other critical infrastructure.
This leads me to my question, which is not about passing lanes. This is a much more specific question about a particular road. The minister would be aware of the washed-out Clearwater road. There’s been, you know…. There’s still a lot of, I know, work that is going on between the Ministry of the Environment — it’s responsible for parks; this road, the washed-out section, is in the park — and MOTI.
The locals have been asking for this fix for quite some time now, and so I’m wondering if the minister could just update us on what the current status is of a permanent fix to the washed-out section of Clearwater road.
Hon. R. Fleming: Just to get back to the member on it, there are quite a few things there, and then a specific question. So let me make a comment about the CVSE pullout that was announced last week and is going to be entering construction soon.
[The bells were rung.]
It’s a bit more than just a paved pullout. There will be automated scale lights.
The Chair: Members, division has been called. I think we will adjourn.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:40 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTIONS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); K. Greene in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
On Vote 39: ministry operations, $40,749,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
E. Sturko: Good morning, everyone.
Yesterday, both in question period and then following a statement on safer supply that was released by the B.C. RCMP, this government came forward with the information that there is no evidence of widespread diversion. I went over and over this RCMP statement. I see some things that were concerning.
Then I got thinking that, potentially, there isn’t evidence because it wasn’t requested that they investigate and ask the RCMP. Maybe they weren’t asked to look for evidence of diversion to be tracked. So I reached out to B.C. RCMP, and they confirmed to me that they have not been asked to track diversion. Of course, there wouldn’t be evidence of widespread diversion collected by the RCMP, because they were not asked to collect this information or to analyze.
My question is to the minister. Knowing that the RCMP have been detecting, as they stated in their press release, “notable quantities” of suspected safe supply, and also some that is confirmed safe supply, will this government, this ministry, commit to working together with the RCMP and all police agencies across B.C. to investigate diversion, to find ways of analyzing diversion and to analyze the presence of hydromorphone in police seizures, both before and after the risk mitigation guidelines came into place?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I just need to start by saying that it’s actually, I think, probably not appropriate for government to direct the RCMP with respect to how they investigate. I mean, they have protocols with respect to what they investigate when they are in the conduct of investigating a crime. We expect, and I have confidence, that they are undertaking that responsibility in an appropriate way. I wouldn’t expect to have to ask them to investigate a particular aspect of how they’re dealing with a drug seizure.
Having said that, I want to say again that I’m very grateful for the work that our law enforcement agencies are doing in communities to go after predatory drug dealers and traffickers, who are preying on vulnerable people and who are contributing to the situation that we find ourselves in, in this province — where we lost 2,539 British Columbians last year. Their work is absolutely critical. It is one of the core pillars of our efforts to fight the toxic drug crisis, and we remain committed to working with the RCMP and with municipal forces in that work.
We need to have a clear understanding of what the outcomes of their investigations are. When they say “notable,” what does that mean? In the most recent case of Prince George, a vast array of pharmaceuticals was seized, some pharmaceuticals on the formulary for the pharmaceutical alternatives program, but we don’t yet know and haven’t yet been advised that they’re actually what the pill bottle or the packaging says that they are. That’s why it is so important to have appropriate processes around the testing of those drugs, so that the composition of those drugs can be verified.
Again, we know that in this province there is a thriving illicit trade in counterfeit Dilaudid. I would note that there were a number of other pharmaceuticals seized in that case, including gabapentin, which is an epilepsy drug, and a whole vast array of other drugs.
It is important that, again, we understand and we have the evidence about what precisely is being seized.
We welcome opportunities to work more closely with law enforcement, and we welcome opportunities for better data sharing. We have conveyed that message very clearly to law enforcement and will continue to do so.
E. Sturko: I’m going to give the minister some information about how developing things like a template, or asking the police to track information, isn’t telling them how to investigate.
In fact, these types of statistics and templates are used in a variety of data collection that the government uses, for example, about domestic violence, intimate partner violence, about the prevalence of weapons. They are being asked to expand the way in which they report on racialized information that’s been collected through police investigations and interactions with police. It’s really important.
So asking for, for example, information about substances that are seized…. Are substances that are seized to be suspected safe supply? Are they being tested every time by Health Canada, and what are those results? Are there challenges to testing to determine whether or not these are coming from pharmaceutical sources or if they’re illicitly manufactured?
If police, for example, tracking…. How is it, in an investigation, without telling them how to investigate…? What is the evidence that you are collecting, in terms of your overall investigations, that is bringing police to believe that they are coming into contact with safe supply? Is it packaging? Is it the appearance of the substances? Is that data collected through things like surveillance?
That’s not telling police who and how to investigate. It goes in line with many, many other forms of data collection that this province already does to make sure that we’re addressing public safety issues and concerns that arise, that have connections across many ministries, including the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, which is why I think it’s incredibly important not to just conclude that things aren’t widespread enough for us to not be concerned about when in fact nothing has been done by this government to ensure that they have that information, that it’s being collected.
I’m going to say it again. I have confirmed, before yesterday’s hullabaloo, that this government didn’t ask the RCMP or other police agencies in British Columbia to collaborate to collect this data that may have had valuable information about potentially adding safeguards to safe supply.
No one from this side is saying that we should stop giving people medications that they need. We’re simply saying that we need to improve safety and, in helping people who do desperately need help, that we’re not causing unintended consequences in this province.
Let me ask again, Minister: will this government and this ministry commit to working with the RCMP and other municipal agencies across this province to develop a system of reporting? Not telling them how to investigate but, in their investigations, collecting samples of information about the things that they are collecting, which may in fact or may not be safe supply, but at least we would know.
Then when we talked about things like, for example, what is widespread or what is notable, we would actually know, instead of intentionally misleading the citizens of British Columbia to believe that you have collected data that you haven’t.
Hon. J. Whiteside: I will reiterate, for the record, that we work very closely with the RCMP on a number of projects. In particular, our overdose emergency response centre meets on a monthly basis with the chiefs of police from across the province.
At those meetings, what we universally hear, and repeatedly hear, is the work that they are doing to combat the illicit drug trade and, specifically, their concern about the amount of illicit fentanyl across the province. It is the amount of illicit fentanyl in the toxic drug supply that is killing British Columbians at unprecedented and clearly unacceptable rates.
We work with the RCMP and with municipal law enforcement. We continue to do that. They are very important partners. But when we hear and when we read a statement from the RCMP saying, “There is currently no evidence to support a widespread diversion of safer supply drugs in the illicit market in B.C. or Canada,” I take them at their word on that.
I would just note, again, that the relationship and the opportunities for law enforcement to bring forward concerns are a routine and regular part of the work that we do with them.
I would just encourage the member to be careful about allegations of anybody intentionally misleading anyone. That’s not a helpful direction to take this conversation in.
I would suggest that if the member has specific questions about police operations, she defer those to PSSG. We will certainly apprise our colleagues in PSSG of her specific interest in police operations so that they can provide the answers if she has further questions in that regard.
The Chair: I would bring members’ attention to the order and decorum guide on page 3, unparliamentary language. I would encourage members to be very familiar with that. Thank you.
E. Sturko: Thanks for the advice, Chair. I am familiar with that.
There is no evidence, I would suggest, because it wasn’t asked to be collected. I understand that police agencies get together and discuss the illicit drug trade, and they discuss concerns over fentanyl. It’s a shared concern on all sides of the House. I know that what we’re seeing in British Columbia is absolutely devastating.
I don’t understand the hesitancy to commit to data collection. They are not going to develop templates, and they are not going to collect information randomly, unless it is requested.
The statement says there’s no evidence to suggest widespread…. Yeah, they don’t have the evidence because it was not requested of them. But they do say that they have been seizing notable quantities of safe supply. It goes on to say that they have now asked their members to look into it. It’s not the exact words they used, but it’s in there.
Can the minister please explain: why the hesitancy on behalf of her ministry to commit to collecting data on police seizures — on what is either confirmed or suspected to be safe supply, on what types of evidence they are finding with regard to what they are suspecting and what they have confirmed to be safe supply — and to help strategize on what information would be helpful to the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions and on things that could be used in order for us to ensure that in helping people, which is what we need to do and which is the aim of giving people prescribed pharmaceutical alternatives, there are no unintended consequences, that everything possible can be done to ensure that there are no population-level harms associated with that program?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I just want to assure the member that there’s absolutely no hesitancy in working with the RCMP. We are very interested in having better data. In fact, we spend a considerable amount of time discussing access to data for various programs with the RCMP and municipal police forces.
We’ve asked the RCMP for further clarification about their statement. We will, of course, be following the outcome of their investigations very closely, and Minister Farnworth and I will continue to work together to have that inform next steps. But there is no hesitancy. We work with the RCMP. They’re an important partner. Happy to receive additional further data from them.
E. Sturko: I thank the minister for that assurance. I’m very happy to hear that there’s no hesitancy. I look forward to, perhaps in the near future, learning more about projects between our government and law enforcement to ensure the safety of British Columbians and to make sure that notable doesn’t turn into widespread issues and that we ensure the safety of all British Columbians on a population level. That’s very important, so thank you very much. I do appreciate that.
The percent of people on opioid agonist treatment, otherwise known as OAT, who have been retained for 12 months has fallen to 44.9 percent and is expected to decline more to 43.3 percent for 2023-24. The slim increases are half of the minimum targets set in previous years. The service plan last year noted retention challenges, such as treatment intensity, travel requirements, challenges in meeting clients’ needs and availability of prescribers.
The same explanation is again offered this year. With now reduced targets and no hope of returning to the peak baseline of 51.9 percent in 2020-2021, what additional resources are there within this budget that are aimed at increasing retention to OAT?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:39 a.m.