Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 2, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 319

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 28 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2),

Hon. M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Rotary Club of West Vancouver Sunrise and Ride for

Rescue fundraiser

K. Kirkpatrick

Legislative Assembly song

A. Walker

Karis Support Society

R. Merrifield

Geoff Dawe

D. Routley

Paul Kershaw and community theatre in

Cranbrook

T. Shypitka

30th annual Conversation on Chilliwack’s

Children

K. Paddon

Oral Questions

Surrey school district portable use

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Kahlon

K. Kirkpatrick

Safety of children in government care

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Dean

Drug decriminalization program and regulation of

illicit drug use in public spaces

L. Doerkson

Hon. J. Whiteside

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Fraud Risk and Financial Statements:

B.C. Public Sector,

Part 2 , May 2023

Reports from Committees

Public Accounts Committee,

summary of activities,

2022-23

P. Milobar

J. Rice

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

D. Clovechok

Hon. K. Conroy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

R. Merrifield

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2023

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s my pleasure to welcome the team at the Indigenous justice

secretariat that’s here with us today, somewhere. We have Colleen Spier,

Irina Sladecek, Lisa Poeckert, John Nsabimana, Erna Mazer, Kaitlyn

Jep­son, Lindsay Hack and Tom Daly.

I just want to appreciate all the work you do that’s really important

and welcome you to the House.

Hon. A. Mercier: I’d just like to welcome to the gallery I think a group of probably

the smartest kids in British Columbia, at least smarter than I am, the grade

12 students from Brookswood Secondary School, from Katie Glover’s political

studies class. I believe there’s another class here as well.

I met with them a couple of weeks ago. Really bright. It’s very clear

there are some future Langley MLAs in the mix. I’m hoping not for a couple

of elections.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

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

Hon. H. Bains: Members and staff from the Construction Maintenance and Allied Workers

are here all week to meet with the ministers and MLAs to talk about issues

that are really important to their 8,000 members.

[10:05 a.m.]

I had a very productive discussion with them yesterday. I’m really

glad that their commitment to worker safety and making their working

conditions better is unwavering. I was really impressed with their approach

to this.

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

Chris Wasilenchuk, CMAW president.

Mike Jensen, CMAW first vice-president.

Jan Morris, CMAW Local 2423 president.

Mark Miller, CMAW Local 2300 business rep.

Shawn Sly, CMAW Local 506 business rep.

Neil Niles, CMAW VP of underrepresented groups.

Ronette Paul, CMAW Local 1346 business rep.

Ron Kneller, CMAW Local 1998 business rep.

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

Coast region.

Ron Harry, CMAW director of business development and external

relations.

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

I want to thank you personally for the work that you do to improve the

lives and health and safety of the workers that you represent.

D. Routley: I have four guests today.tamanaw

The first two: Geoff Dawe is pulp and paper workers Canada Local 2

president, national vice-president and a power engineer, and he’s

accompanied by Mike Hearsey, vice-president of Local 2. Both of these

gentlemen are fully committed to the health and safety of their co-workers.

I’m so impressed by the commitment they make to Crofton. The Crofton mill is

in the midst of a transition to a more sustainable future. These two people,

above that, are committed to the families I represent.

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

please welcome them.

D. Clovechok: I’m absolutely thrilled today to introduce a friend of mine, who I

haven’t seen in about 25 years, Sherri Clair, who was in the tourism

business. I remember, as a younger man, Chateau Lake Louise and other

hotels. She’s moved to Ottawa and now works for the Canadian Propane folks.

Sherri Clair is actually an amazing tourism mentor for my daughter, too, who

is now a CEO in tourism. So would the House make Sherri feel very

welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to give a shout-out this morning — I don’t

think she’s here — to Kat Hartwig from Brisco. She’ll be a recipient of the

2023 community awards later on.

Hon. N. Cullen: I have a number of our team from Water, Land, and Resource Stewardship

joining us here in Victoria today. From the WLRS team, which has just turned

one year old, our ministry: Samantha Gysbers; Brenda Larkin, Jolene

Shepherd, Crystal Nelligan, for­merly Philpott; Cindy Turner, Jaime

Gabrielle, Ramona Braund, Allie Nurse, Erynn Neeson, Diana McNeill, Kerri

Davis, Emily Stein and Trisha Ng.

They’re all from the WLRS Ministry, and they all represent the LUPPE

division, otherwise affectionately known as “Loopy.” I’d like the House to

make them feel very welcome. The Loopy division of WLRS, a different Loopy

than other Loopys. They are an excellent team. They support us very well and

keep our ministry on track.

Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: The other two guests I have joining me today are my two CAs, Pam

Cooling and Sarah Miller. I’d like the House to help make welcome the people

who make the office run.

S. Furstenau: I have two guests in the gallery today. Isla Fordyce is a grade seven

student at York House. She reached out to me two years ago, shortly after

the election, and asked to do an interview. I obliged and invited her to

come and shadow for the day, and here she is.

She’s the head of her student council, enjoys social studies, math,

science, basketball and volleyball. Her team was the provincial champion

team last year.

[10:10 a.m.]

Isla has brought a guest with her, her dad, Dr. Chris Fordyce. He’s

the director of cardiac intensive care unit at Vancouver General Hospital

and associate professor of cardiology at UBC.

Would the House please make Isla and Dr. Fordyce most

welcome.

B. Banman: I have four guests that I would like to introduce today. I have Devin

and Vanessa Campbell of the Abbotsford Flying Club. They have brought with

them two very special guests all the way from Querétaro, Mexico: Danna and

Anyah Rodriguez.

Now, I have to tell you that when I met Danna at a local restaurant,

she did not believe I was a politician. Well, I know some of you still don’t

believe I’m a politician, but that’s another story. The reason for that,

which I think will be poignant to all of us, is I did not have an armed

security detail with me.

So I would like for the House to not only welcome them and show them

great British Columbia hospitality but for all of us to be mindful of how

very, very special this place called Canada and British Columbia is. Would

you please give them a huge, warm welcome to the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2),

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 28, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2023. This bill makes amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, the

Commercial Transport Act and the Insurance (Vehicle) Act to shift the

obligation to license and insure a leased vehicle to the named lessee.

The bill also makes consequential amendments to other acts because of

this shift of legal obligations for leased vehicles.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ROTARY CLUB OF

WEST VANCOUVER SUNRISE

AND RIDE FOR

RESCUE FUNDRAISER

K. Kirkpatrick: Rotary Club of West Vancouver Sunrise is an energetic service club

consisting of committed individuals who make an impact not only in our

community but globally. For over 32 years, this group of dedicated

Rotarians has embarked on many projects which have truly made a

difference. In fact, it was actually Rotary that initially piqued my

interest in Canadian politics, as they sponsored me way back in high

school to visit Parliament in Ottawa and meet the Prime

Minister.

While Rotary Sunrise has generous sponsors and partners, they also

fundraise for the projects they support. One of their signature

community fundraisers is an event called the Rotary Ride for Rescue.

This is a cycling event where participants ride up Cypress Mountain. How

it works is that an individual or a team of cyclists registers their

commitment to ride in the event. Then, in the weeks leading up to the

ride, they gather donations from family, friends and community members

in support of their efforts.

The ride starts at the corner of Cypress Bowl Road and Cypress

Lane, where cyclists climb to an elevation of 900 metres and travel a

distance of over 14 kilometres to the finish line at the Cypress Bowl

Nordic ski area. There’s also a mountain bike route, as well as a

virtual ride for those who want to partake at home. Guess which one I

might be doing?

The event benefits, among other great causes, North Shore Rescue,

hence the name of the event. North Shore Rescue relies on donations for

things like critical ongoing member training and regular updating of

equipment to help them with their important search and rescue work. They

are very appreciative of the financial contributions Rotary Sunrise

makes to their organization.

This year the ride takes place on June 10, marking the 12th

anniversary of the event. And while I won’t be riding myself, I will be

joining Rotary ride chair Karen Harrison at the beautiful Cyprus Pop-Up

Village to congratulate participants on their successful quest up the

mountain.

[10:15 a.m.]

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SONG

A. Walker:

Thank you, Speaker, my dear friend,

I hope you’ll hear

me to the end.

I have this song for all to sing.

Now I hope you

all will all join in.

Hey ho, the days are long.

The work is

hard, but we have fun.

We do this work together, friends,

for

the people of our province.

First on up and on my right,

with a

name, they do unite.

They bang their desks; they toss a

stone.

Before we know it, a half hour is gone.

Hey ho, the days

are long.

The work is hard, but we have fun.

We do this work

together, friends,

for the people of our province.

Next on up

our friends with Green,

a hard-working bunch if ever I’ve

seen.

Bear dens, lichens, Telus Health,

they just can’t make

their minds up.

Hey ho, the days are long.

The work is hard, but

we have fun.

We do this work together, friends,

for the people

of our province.

And, of course, our single friend

who went to

sit as independent.

He claims to lead a party.

He just needs one

more friend.

Hey ho, the days are long.

The work is hard, but we

have fun.

We do this work together, friends,

for the people of

our province.

My orange-hued friends, a team so kind,

when

criticized, we don’t mind.

We smile and say with words

sincere:

“It’s 16 years that led us here.”

Hey ho, the days are

long.

The work is hard, but we have fun.

We do this work

together, friends,

for the people of our province.

It’s the

honour of my lifetime

to serve with colleagues all so

fine.

Though our views may sometimes clash,

that’s how the

sausage is made.

KARIS SUPPORT SOCIETY

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

morning.

This winter, at Alli McNeill and former MLA John Weisbeck’s annual

fundraiser, they brought together friends and family to raise money and

awareness for the Karis Support Society. This is an easy one for me, as

I’ve been in awe of the founders and the organization since its

beginnings in 2006. This organization has been a beacon of hope for

countless women, helping them transform their lives and emerge from the

darkness of addiction, homelessness and mental health

struggles.

The story of the Karis Support Society began in 2006, when a group

of friends recognized the gaps in the services and resources for women

struggling with addiction and homelessness. Moved by compassion and a

deep sense of responsibility, these friends came together with the

shared vision of creating an organization that could provide

life-changing assistance to those in need. Over the years, their

dedication, hard work and unrelenting commitment have laid the

foundation for the incredible organization that the Karis Support

Society is today.

Starting in group homes, the society now runs a 37-bed, LEED

certified building, where women and their children can come and heal.

The society’s dedication to providing safe and stable housing is the

cornerstone of its success. By offering a secure environment, the Karis

Support Society helps to restore dignity and self worth to those that

have been marginalized and forgotten. This foundation of stability is

vital in allowing individuals to focus on personal growth, mental health

and recovery.

The society’s efforts don’t end with housing. They recognize the

importance of comprehensive support, which is why they provide access to

essential services like counselling, life skills training and employment

assistance. These programs foster a sense of community, belonging and

empowerment, enabling individuals to rebuild their lives with renewed

purpose and self confidence.

As I spoke with the co–executive directors, Deborah Klassen and

Geri Pauls, about the work of Karis, my hope grew. This is a facility

that relies on the private sector for funding and support. Yet in the

face of adversity, they have demonstrated that it is possible to change

lives, restore hope and create a lasting transformation.

[10:20 a.m.]

GEOFF DAWE

D. Routley: It was recently working with community members to generate support

for the Crofton Mill in its efforts to transition to a more sustainable

future that I got to know Geoff Dawe, local president of

PPWC.

Geoff was born in Newfoundland in 1973. His dad tragically drowned

on the Ocean Ranger February 15, 1982, 41 years ago this year.

His dad was a man with a grade 9 education, who he says was thrown to

the wolves and given zero safety or marine training, just handed a

manual. Geoff was only eight years old; his brother only ten.

His mother put them, put Geoff, into army cadets to keep, as he

says, her two feral boys in order. He was a cadet until he was 18. He

knew union life was for him due to the strict discipline and order of

how things are to be done, similar to his cadet life. Union activism

forces you to be accountable to the people you represent.

Geoff tragically then lost his leg during a driving accident while

he was working on offshore oil rigs. It took him over eight months to

recover, and the family moved to Ladysmith at that time. His lovely

wife, Erinn, rehabbed him by walking on the wonderful Holland Creek

Trail in Ladysmith. They have two children: son Darcy in the military,

playing Junior A hockey, who recently won silver at the Canadian Armed

Forces nationals; daughter Sophie, a nursing student, skated with Skate

Canada for years, now volunteers and coaches with the district of North

Cowichan at Fuller Lake.

The entire family is dedicated to community. Without the Crofton

Mill paying workers a good wage, none of this would be possible. The

mill supports families, who in turn support communities. This, I think,

I wanted to bring to the attention of members, because Geoff is a

picture of why we do these things. It’s not about a mill. It’s about

families like Geoff’s.

PAUL KERSHAW AND

COMMUNITY THEATRE IN

CRANBROOK

T. Shypitka: Apparently, it appears there’s theatre in the air here in the

Legislature. I’d like to thank the member for Parksville-Qualicum for

that, which leads me to my two-minute statement.

I’d like to speak to the life and times of Paul Kershaw, or P.K.

as he was affectionately known. P.K. was an educator, director,

community leader, mentor and kind soul. A drama and stagecraft teacher

for over 25 years at Mount Baker senior secondary school in Cranbrook,

P.K. gave thousands of students the opportunity to push their own limits

and discover themselves on stage and beyond.

His passion and love of theatre naturally led to his involvement

in Cranbrook’s Community Theatre and Cranbrook Shakespeare society. He’s

one of a handful of people behind the creation of the Key City Theatre,

which for more than 30 years staged many of P.K.’s productions. His

renowned productions of musical and elaborate sets are legendary and

still talked about today. P.K.’s extra­ordinary talent breathed

life into Cranbrook’s local theatre community and touched countless

lives on stage, behind the scenes and in the audience.

He was named Cranbrook’s Citizen of the Year in 2002 for his

contribution to theatre and performing arts. This quote from one of

P.K.’s play productions, Man of La Mancha and the song entitled

“The Impossible Dream” sums up P.K. beautifully. He was a robust, yet

tender man, who dreamed “the impossible dream,” who fought “the

unbeatable foe,” who bore “with unbearable sorrow” and who ran “where

the brave dare not go.”

Accolades and tributes continue to pour in honouring his positive

impact on so many people. P.K. will be missed, but his legacy will live

on and off the stage. Paul sadly passed away April 13, 2023, at the age

of 89 and is survived by Sara, his wife of 21 years, sons David and

Mark, foster daughter Jani and by his siblings, John, Alan and

Ruth.

Would this House please give the life and times of this well-loved

man a theatrical ovation for this, his last curtain call. Bravo,

bravo.

30 th ANNUAL CONVERSATION ON

CHILLIWACK’S CHILDREN

K. Paddon: It is a pleasure to rise to do my favourite thing, which is to

share with you all how fantastic people are in

Chilliwack-Kent.

Specifically today, what I want to share is something that

happened last Friday, April 28. Over 30 organizations were represented

in Tzeachten Hall in Chilliwack-Kent for the 30th Annual Conversation on

Chilliwack’s Children. This conference is put on by the Chilliwack Child

and Youth Committee, and the title this year was “Together we can.” The

theme was collaboration: its strengths, its stories, its challenges and

its opportunities.

[10:25 a.m.]

It was an honour to be in the room with so many skilled,

passionate and dedicated advocates and service providers — too many for

me to name; I’m not going to make Hansard do it today — and it

was also an honour to serve as a keynote speaker.

The day was made up of some incredible comments and some amazing

activities. We started off with a welcome from Chief Derek Epp, followed

by welcomes from Wanda Smith, director of operations for MCFD, and Kate

Healey, executive director for Chilliwack Community Services, who serve

as co-chairs for Chilliwack Child and Youth. There was another keynote,

by Martha Dow from University of the Fraser Valley, the director of

community health and social innovation hub, or CHASI.

The activities included “Every door is the right door,” which was

a simulation activity for all of the attendants, and the community

collaboration panel.

I want to thank all of the volunteers and the whole team, all of

the sponsors who made this possible. It really took so many people. This

created an environment of collaboration for everybody in attendance.

Indeed, I have no doubt that, truly, “Together we can.” In Chilliwack

and Chilliwack-Kent, the conversations and the work done last Friday

were just one piece of the passion and dedication that I see every day

when I get to work in that community.

Oral Questions

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

E. Sturko: Last night the lack of new schools and increasing numbers of

portables came up on notice in Surrey city council, because the

community is very concerned with the crisis situation in school district

36. They’re concerned that it will impede the city’s ability to build

new homes and to help tackle the housing affordability

crisis.

The Premier’s spectacular failure to deliver for Surrey parents

has left 10,000 students to languish in portables. In fact, families in

Surrey are now getting the opposite of what the NDP promised. There

isn’t even room for more portables on school grounds. The NDP promised

portable-free schools by 2020, but instead, they’ve given Surrey the

absurdity of double-decker portables.

A simple question for the Premier: will the NDP ever keep their

promise to eliminate Surrey portables, and if so, when?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I really appreciate the new-found interest from the opposition on

education funding and investments in schools. I really appreciate it. It

certainly wasn’t the case when they were on this side of the House. It

was not the case, but I appreciate that time in opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

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

investments in education and in schools.

Now, the member asked the question, and the member wasn’t here,

but many of her colleagues were. She’ll know that when the Leader of the

Opposition was the Minister of Finance, he gave zeros for four years, as

Minister of Finance, for budgets for capital for schools in Surrey —

zero.

The last four years….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Members. Members will come to order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: That’s enough, Members.

Members will come to order, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the other former Minister of Finance saying: “It was

only two years under him. It was two years under me.” I appreciate him

highlighting that he was part of this challenge as well.

When we formed government, there were 8,000 student seats that

were needed in Surrey. In the last four years of their government, there

were actually zero schools being built in Surrey.

[10:30 a.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

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

Let’s hear the answer first.

Please continue.

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

I think it’s important to note that we have a Supreme Court

decision that came down because of the rights that they stripped away

from teachers. That came in, which meant we needed more additional seats

above and beyond what we had already projected that we needed — the

shortfall.

We also have seen 250,000 people come to British Columbia, and

many of those people are coming to Surrey. So we acknowledge that the

demand is there and is growing, and we welcome people all across British

Columbia.

But 10,000 seats is what we’re delivering as a government — 10,000

seats in the city of Surrey, not in the province, the city of

Surrey.

In fact, the member asked questions, and she knows that there is a

brand-new elementary school that we’ve announced that’s coming in her

community as well.

Significant investments are being made, and we’re going to

continue to make more investments.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: Well, unlike the current government, which actually cut funding to

learners with disabilities like dyslexia, I can assure you that the

budget actually went up overall under the previous government. In

fact…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

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

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

E. Sturko: In fact, the previous government started six new schools and eight

additions and opened 6,700 new seats. And while the NDP continue to make

excuses for double-decker portables, we actually cut the number of

portables by 100 from what this NDP government had left in the 1990s,

and we built, of course, new schools like Grandview Heights and the

Salish Secondary.

The NDP promises “a total removal of these portables over the

course….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

E. Sturko: They don’t like the facts, but this is a direct quote: “…a total

removal of these portables over the course of the next four

years.”

I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it was a clear promise

and timeline. Yet, as with other issues, a huge chasm between the

Premier’s rhetoric and their terrible results — results that include

$17.5 million that the school district has now been forced to pay for

portables that were supposed to be eliminated. And now double-decker

portables.

I will ask again because the question really wasn’t answered: has

the Premier utterly abandoned his promise to eliminate portables in

Surrey and, if not, what are the revised timelines?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I do find it interesting that the opposition puts the newest

member up to ask questions, because the rest of them that were here know

what their history and their record of this place is.

Interjections.

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

a deep breath.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

The Minister will continue.

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

I will say the member mentioned a couple of things. I think it’s

important for the member to know — perhaps she can talk to the

colleagues around — that they actually cut adult basic education when

they were in government. They actually made cuts to it. I appreciate the

member wasn’t here for that, but her colleagues around her can tell

her.

Not only are we investing in schools….

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Not only are we already investing 10,000 new seats, above the

8,000 also for growth; we know there needs to be more. But it’s not just

the structures that we need. We also need to invest in the

class­rooms, in our educators.

[10:35 a.m.]

A 24 percent increase in funding per student since we formed

government — 24 percent increase. We value the education system. We

value the structures. But we also value, very importantly, the teachers,

the educators in the classrooms. That’s why we make the investments we

have been making. We’re going to continue to invest in Surrey and

communities around the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, although the minister likes to avoid the actual question, I

will bring it back to the completely failed promise by the NDP to

eliminate portables. Now you would expect the Premier and his government

to display at least some embarrassment for so brazenly betraying their

promises to families.

It’s not just Surrey getting the NDP’s double-decker portables.

Here’s what Sooke school board’s chair Ravi Parmar says: “One of the

things that we have to do in the absence of new school builds is to add

portables. The province is not able to fund at the pace of growth that

we’re seeing in the Sooke school district.” Apparently, this NDP

candidate hasn’t received the message guide yet, which is strange, as

his political staffer works just down the hallway.

So why has the Premier consistently failed to fulfil the NDP

promises to families and force communities to resort to desperate

measures like double-decker portables?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s interesting that they mentioned the chair of the Sooke school

board. He got into politics because of the cuts that these members over

here made when they were in government. He was a high school student who

just didn’t accept the cuts that were being made.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: He said he found it was unacceptable, and coming out of high

school, he decided he was going to run to be on the school board to make

a difference in his community.

Brand-new investments in that community. In fact, I had a chance

to visit some of the schools that are brand-new, opening up in those

communities, seeing the teachers that are being hired.

Now, the member also asked about Surrey and said I didn’t answer

the question, so I’ll answer it this way: Salish Secondary, brand-new

1,500 seats in Surrey, open; Woodward Hill Elementary, additional 195

seats….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

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

Interjections.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon: Grandview Heights Secondary, additional brand-new 1,500 seats;

Maddaugh Elementary, 605 seats; Sullivan Elementary. I’m not even

halfway through the list, and that’s what’s already opened.

We have brand-new investments that are happening to open

additional seats, and not only investments in the classrooms, but

investments in the teachers and the re­sources in the

classrooms.

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

K. Kirkpatrick: I’d like to thank the minister for reading off the list of all of

the schools started by the B.C. Liberal government.

Results are what matter. And from Surrey to Langford, this Premier

is failing miserably to provide the schools that students desperately

need. The crowding and proliferation of portables is forcing schools to

stack students in double-decker portables.

Here’s more from Ravi Parmar: “The province doesn’t provide the

funding at the pace we need. Happy Valley is jammed-packed. We’ve added

as many portables as we can.” Jam-packed with portables isn’t exactly a

great campaign slogan from the Premier’s hand-picked

candidate.

Why is the Premier failing families in Surrey, the Sooke school

district and right across this province, reaching a point where students

are being crammed into double-decker portables?

Hon. R. Kahlon: You know what, I appreciate the opposition now not being in favour

of portables. They will remember there was a Minister of Education that

sat…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …within them, Minister Fassbender, who, on record multiple times,

said there’s nothing wrong with portables on several

occasions.

[10:40 a.m.]

Interjections.

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

The minister will continue.

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

You know, I’ve already started a list of all the schools that

we’ve opened. Brand-new….

Interjections.

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

schools.

Interjections.

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

now.

Members.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, I can share with the members that we have not only

the 10,000 that I’ve already committed to, which I’ve already said;

we’re also opening Ta’talu Elementary School in the member’s riding that

asked the question.

Semiahmoo Trail Elementary is getting an expansion. Kwantlen Park

Secondary is getting an expansion. K.B. Woodward Elementary is getting

an expansion. Sno­komish Elementary, a brand-new elementary school

coming. Tamanawis Secondary is getting an expansion. Guildford Park

Secondary, expansion. Fleetwood Park Secondary, expansion. Clayton

Heights Secondary is getting an expansion. Forsyth Road Elementary is

getting an expansion.

I’m going to catch my breath because there’s more. Site secured

for Darts Hill Elementary, because, you know, we have to buy land

because the opposition sold the land to private developers.

We’ve also secured a site for a new….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let the minister finish, please.

Please conclude.

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

We’ve secured sites for Darts Hill Elementary School and also a

site secured for Redwood Heights Elementary. We’re making significant

investments, not only in our schools, not only in our educators, but

we’re also making investments to buy land so that we can have the

schools and the infrastructure that we need.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN

IN GOVERNMENT

CARE

S. Furstenau: Today in the Tyee , Katie Hyslop has an

article

summarizing the Representative for Children and Youth’s report on why

youth are fleeing the child welfare system in this province. Hundreds of

youth and children are missing every single month from the child welfare

system in B.C. The reality is that government creates the conditions

that lead to so many children becoming lost, going missing or

disappearing from care.

After the tragic death of Traevon Chalifoux-Desjarlais, the

minister and her ministry said they were making changes to improve

in-care services, calling the changes “transformational.” But we’ve

heard this for decades. There have been reports on the failures of the

B.C. child welfare system for decades. The reports have been saying the

same things for decades. It doesn’t matter what government is there. The

protection is of the system and not of the children in that system. We

have to have a government that has the courage to stand up for the

children and not the system.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How can

the government ensure the safety and well-being of children that it is

supposed to be caring for when they don’t know where those children

are?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. Nothing is more

important than the safety and well-being of the children and youth who

are in our care. When a child or youth is missing, immediate steps are

taken. We want to make sure that they receive the same response as any

caring parent. I can tell you that our front-line staff immediately take

steps to locate those children and youth and to make sure that they are

kept in a safe home as well.

We have been making changes to the in-care system. We know, and

the representative has reminded us, that there is a lack of a sense of

belonging for children and youth who are in the care system. So we’ve

taken steps to make sure that children and youth are connected to their

family, to their community and to their culture.

We’re taking steps to change the system to make sure that when

children and youth, if they do have to come into care — that their needs

are met and that their placement, their home and their carers are there

to meet their needs.

[10:45 a.m.]

The other thing we have done is we have passed legislation. We

have changed policy. We have taken action in order to try and keep

children and youth safely with their families and actually prevent them

from coming into the care system at all, because we know that for

children and youth, their outcomes are going to be so much better, and

children and youth will be able to thrive.

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

S. Furstenau: The minister started with exactly the same statement that was sent

to Katie Hyslop in the Tyee : “Nothing is more important than

the safety and well-being of children and youth who are in our care.”

Yet the data, the evidence, the reality for so many of these children

demonstrates that is not the outcome that is happening. Over nine months

in 2022, an average of 432 children went missing each month. Four

children died.

The report from the Representative for Children and Youth states:

“A lack of action by authorities has resulted in the child welfare

system continuing to function as a pipeline to child exploitation, sex

trafficking and mur­dered and missing Indigenous women and

girls.”

It’s time for us to stop with the talking points, to stop with the

endless efforts to protect this system. The system is failing. It’s

built on a system that was designed to remove Indigenous children from

their families. That is the foundation of this system. It continues to

work in this way. There is a multilevel failure.

I think it would be really important for every member of this

House and for the public to know that for each child in care, this

government budgets $135,000 per year per child. If we want to keep

children with their families, let’s take a significant portion of that

and provide it to the families so that they can meet the needs of their

children.

It’s $135,000 per child per year. A lot of that is going to

for-profit group homes where nobody can tell you where those children

are.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member?

S. Furstenau: My question to the Minister of Children and Families: how can she

reconcile the lack of safety in government care for children and youth

when safety is used to justify the reason for removing children from

their parents in the first place?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. When any child or youth

is injured or there’s a death, it’s a terrible tragedy. My heart goes

out to anybody connected with those children and youth. When a child or

youth from care is missing, every step is taken to locate that child or

youth and to make sure that they are in a safe home and that they have

the supports and services that they need.

I appreciate the report from the representative. We’re taking the

recommendations very seriously, and we will be responding to them very

quickly, in collaboration with our staff, with partner agencies, with

Indigenous service providers as well.

We have made some progress. Here in chambers just last November,

we passed really significant legislation to support Indigenous

jurisdiction, because we know that Indigenous children and youth have

been overrepresented in the system for far too long.

We’re absolutely committed to changing that and to working with

Indigenous nations and communities so that children and youth are able

to stay connected to their family, to their community and to their

culture. We have a lot more work to do, and I’m absolutely committed to

doing it.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND REGULATION OF

ILLICIT

DRUG USE IN PUBLIC SPACES

L. Doerkson: I’m glad we’re talking about the safety of children today because

every day in British Columbia, parents fear their children will

encounter needles in parks and playgrounds due to the Premier’s reckless

decision to permit the open use of dangerous drugs like crystal meth,

crack cocaine and fentanyl.

What the public doesn’t understand is why — why having a beer in a

public park is strictly regulated and there are no restrictions or bans

on using drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl. Frankly,

it’s absurd that we’re even having this debate.

Will the Premier implement a provincial ban on the public use of

drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl? Yes or

no.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question, which relates to the

pilot project of decriminalization of drugs, which, of course, is in the

context, in our province, of an unrelenting toxic drug crisis, which is

the leading cause of unnatural death in our province.

[10:50 a.m.]

That is why we have taken these steps and answered a call from

police, from front-line care providers, from public health, from

municipalities to remove the fear and stigma for people who are dealing

with problematic substance use and to decriminalize small amounts of

illicit drugs so we are better positioned to connect those individuals

to care and support.

Municipalities, through the UBCM, have been a part of our core

planning table, working with all of our partners on developing the

application for exemption. They continue to be very much part of

monitoring and overseeing the implementation of this, and they will work

very closely, as they have been doing, with their public health officers

to assess the impact of this on the ground.

We will continue to work with them to respond to any concerns that

may arise, as we have been doing through­out. I’m very grateful

for the collaboration of municipalities on this serious public health

matter.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

L. Doerkson: Well, the minister suggested removing fear. You’ve created it in

our communities, and that answer is not good enough for the parents that

are very fearful.

Let’s take Campbell River as an example of what this Premier,

through his total absence of leadership, is forcing municipalities to do

— municipalities that are simply trying to keep their children safe.

Back in January, they passed a bylaw to provide law enforcement with the

tools to address open drug use in public areas.

However, confronted with provincial opposition and a lawsuit from

the Premier’s Pivot Legal Society, they had to repeal it. They’ve tried

again, only to face another setback this week, to have delay again due

to the intervention from this minister.

No one should have to worry about their children being exposed to

drugs in parks and playgrounds and other public spaces. Why is the

Premier not demonstrating any leadership and taking action at the

provincial level to ban the public use of dangerous drugs like crystal

meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl?

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

respect to….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Yeah, indeed.

I’ll explain, first of all, by saying this project is one tool

that was identified by the select standing committee to which all

parties in this House, with the exception….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Members, no interruptions, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Thank you.

Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s a really unprecedented understanding, non-partisan

understanding, of the crisis impacting our province with respect to the

toxic drug crisis. So I’m grateful that we’re at a place where we’re all

working together to try to turn the dial on this unrelenting

crisis.

Let me just say about Campbell River…. I’ve been to Campbell

River. I’ve toured Campbell River. I have met with service providers.

I’ve met with homeless people. I’ve met with doctors, with physicians,

with nurses who work day in and day out to provide care for people who

are homeless, for people who have addictions, for people who are

struggling. That work….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: That is profound work that is unfolding in a community on the

Island that has just about the highest mortality rate from this crisis

of any other community on Vancouver Island. I know that municipal

council is concerned about that. I know that municipal council is

working with their medical health officer.

I’m looking forward to meeting in person with representatives from

Campbell River to talk about how we work together to engage not just the

municipality but the First Nations implicated in this crisis in Campbell

River as well, to try to better support the situation on the

ground.

That council knows full well that they are working with their

medical health officer under the law, under the Public Health Act, which

requires municipalities to work with their medical health officers on

matters of public health. That’s what they’re doing. We’re working

through a process, and we’ll continue to do that work with

them.

[10:55 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, I think it’s very important that if the minister wants

accuracy, let’s get some actual accuracy going on this.

On page 48 of the committee report, it says very clearly that

they, as in all of the committee, agree that there must, not may, be

consideration of local needs and circumstances during the implementation

of decriminalization. In this regard, members supported continuing

consultation and support for municipalities.

The simple fact is that support doesn’t exist. The consultation

hasn’t existed to the level municipalities want. We’re getting continued

mixed messages from this government. This minister says it’s health

related and has to have approval through health boards. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs says: “Local governments are elected by their

constituents and their community. They know what is best for their

communities.”

We can’t get a straight answer out of this government. They keep

talking about everything other than open drug use in parks and

playgrounds and things like crack and fentanyl and heroin. What the

public wants, and mayors in Kelowna, New Westminster and other mayors

and councils around this province, is a simple provincewide ban around

parks and playgrounds, and this government is refusing to allow that to

happen.

Parents simply want their eight-year-old to go play on a slide

without needing the eight-year-old to be the drug intervention

prevention officer for someone OD’ing with open drug use around that

slide. That’s what they want. They understand that Crab Park will not be

enforced, that the tent encampment there will still see drug use in that

park. But they want the tool to be able to try to enforce and move

people along, help them get treatment when they are causing a problem

around slides, around swings, around water parks.

When will this soft-on-crime Premier listen to the communities

instead of the Pivot Legal Society and actually bring in a provincewide

ban on the open use of fentanyl, crack, heroin and other hard drugs

around our kids’ playgrounds and beaches?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I would suggest, though,

that the confusion, perhaps, is on that side of the House. The confusion

is not with municipalities.

Municipalities understand full well what their obligations are

under the Public Health Act, and they routinely engage with health

authorities and public health officials with respect to public health

matters. This is no different, and there is nothing in decriminalization

that restricts the tools that municipalities have. In fact, we are

having ongoing discussions with municipalities in that

regard.

You know, the member raised the issue with respect to the to the

Health Canada requirements for the decriminalization pilot project. I

will just note that Health Canada approved the exemption based on the

submission that was made and approved this pilot project, having

reviewed all of the actions that have been taken under all of the

points, all of the requirements that they placed.

In regard to alternative measures and being able to direct

individuals to health and social services supports, we have those

supports in place. We have staff in place in order to direct and support

individuals to access…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

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

consultation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let the minister conclude, please.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …with all of our partners, including municipalities. We have an

unprecedented $1 billion investment in this budget, which follows on

unprecedented investments in mental health and substance use in previous

budgets, to build out our system of treatment and care. I could go on

and on and on and would be happy to review that list with

members.

More importantly, I think this is a time when we have an

unrelenting crisis that impacts our communities in so many different and

complicated ways. We need to work together. We really need to work

together to change the dial on this issue.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report Fraud

Risk and Financial Statements: B.C. Public Sector, Part

[11:00 a.m.]

Reports from Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

P. Milobar: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the 42nd

parliament, titled

Summary of Activities 2022-23 .

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

Motion approved.

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

report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

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

brief comments.

In reviewing the Auditor General’s report…. The Select Standing

Committee on Public Accounts engages in im­portant discussions

about how government is managing its services, programs,

responsibilities and resources and areas where this work can be

improved. This report summarizes the committee’s work from April 1,

2022, to March 31, 2023, including its examination of 11 performance

audits and information reports on a variety of topics, including the

response to the COVID-19 pandemic, fraud risk management, cybersecurity,

transportation and mines.

The committee also reviewed the Auditor General’s report on the

financial audit work for the fiscal year 2021-2022 and approved the

financial statement audit coverage plan for auditing the provincial

summary financial statements over the next three years. To further

promote this ongoing accountability and the improvement of public sector

administration, the committee also followed up with 15 audited

organizations to seek additional information regarding their progress in

implementing the audit report recommendations.

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank the

Auditor General, Michael Pickup, and his staff for the important work

that they do, as well as the comptroller general, Carl Fischer, and the

many more senior public servants who appeared before the

committee.

I would also like to thank the Clerk’s office for all of their

support throughout and Hansard as well, of course.

I’d also like to express my appreciation to all the committee

members, including the Deputy Chair, the member for North Coast, for

their hard work and collaboration.

J. Rice: I, too, would like to acknowledge all committee members, including

the Chair, the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson, for their

collaborative spirit and contributions to this committee.

As a new member of the Public Accounts Committee, having joined at

the beginning of this year, I’m impressed by the work we have

accomplished. During my short time as Deputy Chair, the committee

considered reports related to mental health and substance use services

for Indigenous people in B.C. correctional centres, the monitoring of

COVID-19 vaccination coverage as well as the Auditor General’s financial

audit work. I look forward to continuing the work of the committee in

promoting public sector oversight and accountability in the province in

this next fiscal year.

I would like to echo the Chair’s appreciation for the Office of

the Auditor General, the office of the comptroller general and the

numerous senior public servants who took time to appear before the

committee. I would also like to extend a thank-you to the staff from the

Parliamentary Committees Office, Hansard and those who helped with the

committee work.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Rice: I would just like to welcome, who I believe…. My glasses aren’t strong

enough. Michael Jensen is a well-known union activist in my community. He is

here from the Construction Maintenance And Allied Workers union.

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

Orders of the Day

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

Supply, Ministry of Finance.

In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

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

day.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

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

estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $338,869,000

(continued).

D. Clovechok: First of all, I want to thank my colleague for this time that

we’ll have to talk about a couple of really important issues. We don’t

have a lot of time. It does astound me a little bit that we talk so much

about forestry and mining and tourism and all these other resources, yet

the most important resource that we have, which is water, doesn’t get a

whole lot of time.

I’m hoping that you can work with your House Leader, through the

Chair, of course, and get that changed for the next

estimates.

The work that’s being done with the modernization of the treaty

with the Americans is incredibly important. I want to thank Kathy and

Les— I can say your names — for the incredible work that you do. It’s

certainly appreciated, and it’s so important.

I also want to just take a very quick minute to recognize the CRT

Local Governments Committee as well: Cindy Pearce, who is the executive

director; Linda Worley, who is the chair; Stan Doehle, who is the

vice-chair; Ron Oszust; David Brooks-Hill; Aimee Watson; Aidan

McLaren-Caux; Jane Walter; Frank Marino; and Don MacLean. I think Keith

Page has left, but I thank him for his efforts anyways.

After 16 rounds of negotiations with the United States and a bout

COVID, which kind of interrupted things and derailed things a bit, we

are where we are now.

[11:10 a.m.]

I guess the first question that I would have to the minister is:

when is there a potential date that might be struck for an

agreement-in-principle?

Hon. K. Conroy: I, too, would like to introduce staff with me: of course, Heather

Wood, my deputy minister; Les MacLaren, the assistant deputy minister

from EMLI; and Kathy Eichenberger, who, I would say, is our lead at the

Columbia River Treaty, our guru at the table. She keeps trying to

retire, but we won’t let her.

The member has asked about the actual date. There is no actual

date. I know the Americans would like to wrap things up by this summer,

but from our perspective, we want to make sure we have an

approval-in-principle that we can take back to the basin residents and

say: “This is the direction we’re moving in. This is going to be the

treaty agreement that we’re going to live with for many years.” So we

want to make sure we get it right.

We don’t have an actual date, but we’re very respectful of the

fact the Americans would like to have a treaty approval-in-principle by

the summer. But from our perspective, as I said, we want to make sure

that we get this right.

I also, too, want to acknowledge the local governments committee,

as the member did. They have been really great in having that

collaboration with them. We’ve been working with them since 2012 — made

up of different local government representatives from across the basin.

They have been very instrumental in providing input, feedback, as we go

through this whole process, over the entire time.

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

work.

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m glad that patience

is a virtue when it comes to the Canadian side. The Americans want it

done quickly, and it’s going to be an interesting watch to see how we

navigate that.

One of the interesting things, I think, that shows some movement

is that for the first time — I believe it’s the first time — the

Canadian Prime Minister and President Biden actually released a joint

statement on the Columbia River Treaty not too long ago, which is

interesting. I think it shows support.

I’m also wondering…. The play in Canada is a little different.

Will this need to go and have a Senate approval, once it’s done, in

Canada? But with the different entities in the United States, the

different states, their process is different than our provinces, and the

President has a veto of anything that goes on in the United

States.

Do you see that as a problem, moving forward, in terms of

ratifying and getting this thing done as quickly as you can? Is there a

political barrier associated with this?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve talked to the negotiating team. I do not sit at the

negotiating team; no politicians at the negotiating team. We think

that’s a good thing.

They’ve talked to the U.S. about their process. They say that they

don’t know if they will need advice and consent from the Senate prior to

the President agreeing and signing the treaty.

It is important to note, though, that it has been a bipartisan

issue federally with both the Republicans and the Democrats. Unlike in

Canada, where B.C. has a major role in the negotiations, a significant

role in the negotiations, that is not the same in the United States. The

individual states are not part of that process like we are in British

Columbia.

D. Clovechok: That’s encouraging.

I would agree, with the American process, that it is much

different. Thank goodness British Columbia and Canada are together in

this. It’s incredibly important.

It would be safe to assume, then, that the states and their view

of what that treaty will end up looking like — I’m assuming through the

consultations that they’ve done, like we have here in Canada — are in

lockstep with one another in terms of what that’s going to look like in

the processes.

So to get a sense of where they are at, are they together on this,

or is there debate amongst themselves, or is it going to be a

collaborative thing?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re not privy to the internal discussions between the states and

the federal government. It’s very much a federal government process. We

know that the federal departments that are part of the treaty

discussions are very united and providing input, but the states are not

part of that process.

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

play American politics here.

But my biggest concern, and the concern I hear from constituents

around the river treaty, is that there will be a presidential election

coming soon. And of course, they’re worried about those negotiations

from one President to another President and what will happen with that.

So that’s a big question mark, and we don’t know. We don’t know what we

don’t know, right?

[11:20 a.m.]

Anyway, I just want to say, for the record, that I truly believe

that this treaty is one of the most important treaties Canada has signed

in a long, long time. It’s so important in the sense that, with climate

change and everything else, our water is one of our…. It is, in my

opinion, the most precious resource that we have, and we have to make

sure that we’re taking care of that resource.

I’m looking at the things that are happening throughout British

Columbia right now, whether it be Living Lakes Canada, the Lake

Windermere Ambassadors, as a great example, or the Columbia stewardship

folks that are doing studies on waters and aquifers, and so on and so

forth.

I’m wondering what kind of science has been applied to the study

of the Columbia River system and how that process has occurred and how

that knowledge and that data has been incorporated into the

negotiations.

Hon. K. Conroy: All of the existing science from the groups that the member

mentions are contributing to the development of the treaty and

contributing to the development of the operations that address

ecosystems.

In addition to the science at the table, the First Nations who are

at the table are leading further research in collaboration with Canada

and B.C. and NGOs and the environmental organizations on further

developing the knowledge of ecosystems, sharing their traditional

knowledge and bringing that information to the table as well.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer. I’m just wondering if there’s any

forecasting knowledge in terms of timing, where…. The next 50 years —

hopefully we’ll still be here. But 150 years, 200 years from now…. I’m

wondering if that kind of forecasting in terms of the modelling that’s

being done…. I’m sure it is.

[11:25 a.m.]

I think it’s important for residents to understand that this

treaty is being based upon future diagnostics, that we’re not in the

present. We’re in the future, and we’re thinking about our children’s

children’s children — those kids up there, if they’re from the Kootenays

or wherever. I think that’s an important metric to look at, and I’m not

sure if you have that or not, but I’d be interested to hear about

that.

Hon. K. Conroy: B.C. Hydro is working with climate forecasters from universities

in both B.C. and the Pacific Northwest region — all part of the basin.

The modelling shows that we expect more precipitation as time goes on.

Less snow, unfortunately, but more rain, more precipitation. We’re also

seeing more extreme weather events. The modelling is looking at those to

determine how that’s going to affect things in our areas, whether it’s

heat domes, atmospheric rivers, things like that.

Climate change predictions are being integrated within the model,

part of the negotiations at the table. Also, of course, within the

treaty, adaptive management is going to be an important consideration

going forward, given that climate change, both for mitigation and

adaption but also as a result of technological advancements and moving

forward….

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. It’s encouraging to know that that kind of

modelling is being done inside the treaty process, because we don’t know

what it’s going to look like 100, 200 years from now, and it’s really

important for Canada that that happened. I’m encouraged to hear

that.

The next series of questions that I have are based upon the

community consultation process. I think it was robust, and I truly

believe that the negotiation team has included inside of their

negotiations — our side, anyway — those things that they heard from the

community, and that is not only appreciated but much needed.

When you come to a potential agreement-in-principle, I’d like to

understand a little bit about it, and so would the residents of the

basin. Once an agreement-in-principle has been reached, will there be

other community consultations, or will it be a community presentation? A

consultation and a presentation are two different things. Knowing you

can’t start from scratch, will the communities be given an opportunity

to hear their voices again through a consultation process?

Again, I’m wanting to thank the minister for noting — and we’ll

get this on the record, so it happens — that there wasn’t a community

consultation process at the headwaters of the Columbia River and the

Columbia Lake. When that was brought to the minister’s attention, one

happened right away. We’re looking forward to having the next one as

well.

[11:30 a.m.]

So just wanting to know: what happens after the

agreement-in-principle is done? Will there be more consultation? How is

that going to be factored into further negotiations with the

Americans?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to acknowledge the amount of consultation on the basin that

has already been done. It has been ongoing since 2012, I think, if maybe

not even before that. There has been a concerted effort to make sure

that the constituents are very much involved in the process this time,

unlike how it was last time. It was a bit of: “This is being done to

you, not with you.” The work that has been done has been

significant.

A lot of that work that was done has been brought to the table,

and it has been used by the people that are at the negotiating table. It

was brought there to determine the direction we’re moving in. There has

been a lot of really good collaboration.

The approval-in-principle itself will be explained to basin

residents in the same way. It’ll be done through meetings with local

governments, through the local governments committee, of course, and a

series of community meetings, some of them in person and some virtual.

The virtual sessions have been working, especially. The member is well

aware of the significance of geographical areas in our region, so he

understands that.

These meetings will also include the rationale for how

negotiations resulted in the approval-in-principle components. The B.C.

Columbia River treaty team will be seeking feedback on to what extent it

reflects the basin’s interests that we heard over the last decade and

whether, by and large, the overall direction is what communities and

residents were hoping to see.

After that, there will still be some negotiations on how to

translate the agreement-in-principle into treaty wording. Refinements

from what we heard can be addressed at that stage. There won’t be

drastic changes, because there has been so much input from the people in

the basin to date that I don’t think there are going to be any surprises

when we finally get to the approval-in-principle.

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

then.

If there happened to be, hypothetically, a specific issue that

were consistently brought up throughout by the residents of the basin

and that seemed to say, “Yeah, this doesn’t really work,” is there still

flexibility, within that negotiation process, to actually have that new

idea put in, so that it’s not just a presentation of what the

collaborative knowledge has already been? If there’s a new idea that

comes forward, is there a possibility to insert that back into the

treaty process?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, the member has posed a hypothetical question. From my

perspective, I think it’s highly unlikely that there would be anything

brand-new, but if there were, it would have to be assessed as to whether

it could be accommodated into the language of the treaty.

What’s going to be shared is the approval-in-principle. It would

have to be assessed to see whether it’s something that could be included

into the treaty or not.

[11:35 a.m.]

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

I guess from that answer…. I totally get it, because we don’t know

what that consultation process is going to be. Garnering from what I

just heard, then, once there has been consultation and the presentation

of the agreement-in-principle, it’s pretty much a fait accompli, really.

You think that there might be, but it would have to go through a

process, is what I think I heard you say.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I think there has been so much discussion in the basin

prior to all the work that has been done. From my perspective, I think

it would be highly unlikely that there would be something brand-new that

would have to be looked at.

I mean, there is some ability to have some small modifications to

the agreement-in-principle. At the same time, I doubt that’s going to

happen much, just because there’s been so much input and so much

consultation gathered from people throughout the basin.

D. Clovechok: I think that’s a very fair answer. What I hear from residents is

that we just want to make sure we get this thing right. You know, we’ve

got one kick at the can on this, and we just want to get it

right.

I’ll move away from the treaty and get onto something we also,

both the minister and I, are so grateful for. That is, of course, the

Columbia Basin Trust.

[11:40 a.m.]

Back on October 17, 2016, an MOU was made between the province,

driven…. It took almost, I think, four years to build. At that time, the

minister was the critic, I believe, and Minister Bennett was the

minister in charge of this file. It took him almost four years to get

this MOU put together, with a lot of help from other people.

It’s a very unique nature of the trust within the public sector,

and inside of this MOU…. It’s to be reviewed every three years, and the

last review happened in 2019. I did ask the minister in last year’s

estimates if we were going to look at the renewal of the MOU, and she

said yes, and I believe her.

I’m just wondering if the minister can explain why we’re still

waiting for the review of this MOU, knowing full well that we faced

COVID.

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is quite right. It’s a very unique relationship between

the province and the trust. The trust’s dual accountability to the

province and residents of the basin was set out in the original 2016

memorandum of understanding, the MOU, as the member refers

to.

When that document was signed, a commitment was made between the

parties to review the document every three years and ensure it would

still continue to meet the parties’ objectives. And although an overall

review did not occur in 2019, we definitely were having discussions

about the MOU.

The member is right. Unfortunately, COVID postponed a number of

things, and it postponed that for a number of years. We’ve had a

number…. There’s been a staff-level review done, including input from

the trust and from interested government ministries. That’s underway,

and I expect it will be complete fairly soon.

I’m very supportive of this initiative and look forward to

considering the results of the review and any recommendations arising

from the staff once they’ve completed the work. In the meantime, the

original MOU is still in place, and the government and trust continue to

maintain a strong and collaborative relationship with each

other.

I have actually written to the Chair and made a commitment that we

will look at having been able to sign a completed MOU by this summer,

because we recognize how important it is to everybody that the trust….

Also, it’s an important document between both government and the trust

as we carry on our relationship.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. It’s encouraging. I do think that this is

really a unique agreement between government. I know that Kootenay Bill,

when he was doing this, ran into some resistance from his own government

bureaucrats, and that’s why he fought so hard to get this thing over the

line.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’m just going to read into the record, in terms of principle:

“Recognition that the CBTE was created as a unique organization, with a

distinctly regional purpose, with Columbia Basin residents directing the

CBT’s priorities and activities, and with CBT accountable to basin

residents.” I think that remains, as I’ve just heard, part of

that.

I guess the question that I have, just to make me feel a little

bit better, is: is there any resistance within government right now,

that you know of, that would change the MOU in any significant

way?

Hon. K. Conroy: No.

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

In terms of power assets, my question would be…. A very, very

simple question. Would there currently be a desire within the provincial

government at all that would indicate any advocacy to a potential sale

of minority interests in the hydroelectric projects jointly owned by the

trust and Columbia Power Corp.?

Hon. K. Conroy: No.

D. Clovechok: Those are easy answers.

To the minister, would you still consider it unlikely that the

provincial government would sell the remaining asset to the

CBT?

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: It is my distinct pleasure to welcome to this House the class of grade

6s and 7s from Ms. Douglas’s and Mr. Mann’s classes from Queneesh School,

which is a stone’s throw from my house. It’s a beautiful school set in

amongst the trees close to a hospital and a lot of other things that keep a

neighbourhood really functioning well.

I see that they’re playing a little bit of musical chairs as they get

settled into their proper seats, as we all must do down here on the

floor.

I would ask the House to please welcome the class from

Queneesh.

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s interesting that the member brings this up. This was looked

at a number of years ago. There was even an agreement-in-principle that

it potentially could happen, but it was agreed that it would be

difficult. It would be extremely expensive for the trust to purchase the

Columbia Power Corp. because of its incredible assets.

I think it’s a good time to acknowledge those assets and how much

they do for the citizens of the basin, with the initiatives of the

trust, but also to our own government coffers — the significant amount

of money they return back to government as well.

I think it was an excellent investment by the government of the

day when they invested in the original trust, because I think it’s come

back a number of times. Over and over again, they have recouped those

funds.

D. Clovechok: I can’t agree with you more than that. I also just want to

recognize Johnny Strilaeff and all of his staff at CBT. They do such a

wonderful job. I know that we are the envy, in the Columbia Basin, of so

many other places in the province. I recall, off the top of my head,

that the CBT got $76 million last year to invest into the basin. Without

CBT, I would dare think we are not anywhere near where we possibly could

be.

I beg the minister’s forgiveness really quickly — just to jump

back, because I forgot one thing about the river treaty. I want to know

where we are in terms of the Libby dam. I know….

[11:50 a.m.]

Before we have a quick answer on that, I’m also going to ask the

minister if we could have a potential briefing with myself and my

colleague from Kootenay East at some other point around Libby dam and

B.C. Hydro. I’d ask that question. Just a quick update as to where we

are with Libby, because it’s inside the treaty, but it was not built

within the treaty.

Hon. K. Conroy: I just wanted to, further to the member’s comments about the

amount of funds that the CBT puts back into the basin, remind people

that it is retribution from the extensive damage that was caused to the

basin because of the Columbia River treaty.

We have to remind people of that, because I think peo­ple

don’t remember that. So we have to remind them of why the original trust

was created, etc.

I thank the member for raising this. I was thinking: “Why didn’t

he talk about Libby? I thought for sure it was going to come up.”

Definitely, the province has heard loud and clear how residents in the

Koocanusa area are impacted by Libby coordination.

The residents have been extremely passionate about making

improvements to reservoir conditions for recreation, for fisheries, for

ecosystems and also for agriculture. They are being heard, and a much

improved collaborative engagement approach is being discussed at the

negotiating table — very lengthy discussions. I can’t tell the exact

details at this point.

What I am told…. I’m cautiously optimistic that we’ll see change

for the better with Libby and all the issues that members from the area

have raised.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that.

One other around the treaty — I spaced out — is around the First

Nations component of the negotiation team. Three Canadian First Nations

are observer-plus, which I think is just outstanding. I just want to

know from the minister if those three nations had the same kind of

collaborative discussions within their nations like you did with

non–First Nations outside of their communities, with our

communities.

Was that a collaborative conversation? Were their ideas and input

from their nations put into their representatives so that those could be

shared as well?

Hon. K. Conroy: The Indigenous nations that the member has referred to are an

integral partner in developing the negotiating positions and in

contributing to Canada’s proposals to the U.S., along with Canada and

B.C. It’s the Ktunaxa, the Okanagan Syilx and the Secwépemc. They

regularly engage with their leadership and their communities throughout

this process.

Each nation has their own process on how they’ll consult with

their nations and their leaders and their members. In addition to that,

B.C. and Canadian representatives have also been consulting with the

Indigenous leadership and communities throughout the process. The

nations, in fact, yesterday had an all-day meeting with the local

governments committee, meeting with them, talking about issues.

Ecosystems, of course, are a big issue. They met all day.

[11:55 a.m.]

They’ve also been part of the regular consultations that have

happened throughout the basin. The nations themselves, the

representatives, have been involved with those discussions as

well.

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

submit some more questions.

I just want to say to the minister, thank you very much — and

Kathy and Les and everyone else — for what you do. This is an incredibly

important file. It means so much to the people of the basin.

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

much.

Hon. K. Conroy: I would just like to say how much I appreciated this opportunity.

I wish we could have more time to discuss this, because it is critically

important.

It’s not only important to the basin. I’d like to remind people

that it’s important to our province. As I say, it directly contributes

significant dollars to our coffers, which benefits everybody in the

province. I’d like to remind people of that. It is a great asset to

have. The treaty will be a great asset, once we get it finalized, as

well.

Any other questions the member would like to submit, we’ll be only

too happy to answer.

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

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY

AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section A,

to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the

estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,013,019,000

(continued) .

M. Morris: Before we get started on the next thing we will be looking at, the

safer communities action plan — I want to go into some detail on that —

I just want to make a statement, or an observation, more than anything,

on the Surrey discussion that we had before we adjourned

yesterday.

After listening to the minister’s response, I see a bit of an

the Surrey police service and the RCMP. The minister has imposed seven

conditions on the RCMP to hire 161 officers over a short period of time

and, in my estimation, doesn’t give much consideration to the 300 Surrey

police service officers who are currently serving and that can simply

patch over to the RCMP — would be available to do this.

This is compared to the three conditions for the Surrey police

service to hire 500 officers, which, in my experience and estimation,

will have the similar impacts on police resources throughout the

province, but with no imposed time constraints. That’s just my

observation. I go from my experience: over 32 years as a police officer

— as a street cop, as a supervisor, as a detachment commander and a

senior manager — and add to that my experience as a Solicitor

General.

[11:10 a.m.]

The only difference in the delivery of police service in any

community that I’ve been at is the level of resourcing. It doesn’t

matter what shoulder patch an officer wears. The police are all governed

by the same laws. The same code of conduct, the same basic standards are

applicable to any police officer across the province of British

Columbia.

I see the Surrey police service members that we have, that want to

remain in Surrey and serve and protect the citizens of Surrey, can still

remain in Surrey and serve and protect the citizens of Surrey as members

of the RCMP.

This has become a very emotional subject for many. I think

sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the police officers — it

doesn’t matter what shoulder patch they wear — are all the same. It

becomes a political issue more than it does an actual service delivery

issue. So I hope we can get beyond that, and I hope that things progress

in Surrey in an expedited fashion to try and arrive at whatever that end

solution might look like at the end of the day.

Going from there to the safer communities action plan, the $230

million over three years…. As the minister is no doubt aware, the

workload disparity between RCMP detachments, provincial jurisdictions

versus municipal and municipal independent police agencies is

significant.

The average for independent municipal departments is 33 criminal

cases per officer — these are 2021 stats — at a cost of $448 per

capita.

RCMP, large municipal, over 15,000 populations, is 63 cases per

police officer at a cost of $289 per capita.

RCMP, municipal, 5,000 to 15,000, is 65 cases per officer at a

cost of $220 per capita.

Provincial policing in jurisdictions coming in at an

aver­age of 62 criminal cases per officer, but caseload ranges

from a low of 16 criminal cases per officer to a high of 383.

I’m going to give a couple of examples here, because this is where

my concern…. I’m sure the minister has the same concerns. Based on my

experience over time….

I look at a detachment like Takla, north of Fort St. James — very

remote, takes hours to drive into it: 30 serious criminal offences. The

crime rate is 2,000. B.C.’s crime rate is around 100, I believe. The

authorized strength is two. The serious crime caseload per member is 15,

and the total Criminal Code caseload is 204 for a population of

Then we go to West Vancouver, with 327 serious files, a crime rate

of 41, authorized strength of 79, serious crime caseload of four, and a

Criminal Code caseload of 25 for a population of near 50,000.

I guess I’m saying this…. It’ll go into the minister’s response,

I’m sure. I’ve worked in Takla. I’ve worked where I’m the only one

investigating a homicide, where there are other armed people around. You

become a very tactful and resourceful police officer in those kinds of

situations.

We also have Tsay Keh, which is even further north and even more

remote, with an even higher crime and Criminal Code caseload, and

Kwadacha north of there. So we have Tsay Keh, which is the north end of

Williston Lake, and then we have Kwadacha, which is probably about a

three-hour drive north of there on a good day. High in­volvements

of alcohol, domestic violence, persons’ crimes. Their nearest resource

is hours away if the road’s open or days away or hours away by aircraft

if the weather is applicable to that.

These are the areas that I’m concerned about, and I’ll have a

bunch of questions. I’m just wondering if the minister can give an

outline of where the increases to each of our rural detachments might go

from the uniform perspective.

You’re speaking about providing RCMP resources to rural British

Columbia. Can you give us an itemized list of where these resources are

going to go and your projected timeline for these?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member for the question because, over the

number of years that we have been on both sides and have talked about

this issue, I know how important this issue is to him. And I think

you’ve come to realize this issue is important to me. It’s why I was

really pleased we were able to finally get that investment on those

provincial positions, because I think they are crucial.

As you well know, the decisions, the operational deci­sions,

are internal management of the RCMP. That being said, the province will

be superintending those, because I have absolutely made it clear that we

have got to ensure that those places that you’re talking about — the

Iskuts, the Taklas, the small communities under 5,000 — have got to be

able to expect, and have a right to expect, that they have policing

services that they can count on.

What I can tell you is that the plan for this year is for 52 of

those resources to come into British Columbia and to be deployed and

looking at 125 next year.

This issue has come up at UBCM. It comes up at the First Nations

leadership gathering. It’s time and time again. I’m determined to see

that this gets addressed. That’s why that investment was as big as it

was. And I look forward to it taking place.

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

M. Morris: Thank you, Chair.

That’s going to lead into a series of other questions. But before

I get into some of the details around that and some of the implications

to that, I’m just wondering. Has there been any work done to put some

metrics around what a reasonable Criminal Code caseload per member would

be?

What workload can a member sustain without compromising a criminal

investigation? They’ve become so technical in today’s world that if we

make a mistake right at the front end of that investigation, it’s

jeopardized the end of it, and justice is not served as a result of

that. So I’m just curious to see what kind of work has been done to

address that and put those metrics into the operations of

policing.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the member the RCMP are taking all of those things into

account — caseload, remoteness, crime rate — in terms of putting

together how and where to deploy the additional resources.

M. Morris: With that goes the…. This is something that I used to wrestle with

as a senior manager in the forest. If we are to address the caseload per

member in places like Kwadacha or Takla or a number of the other very

remote communities that we have, it may mean doubling or tripling the

establishment at those respective places. With that comes additional

quarters. With that comes the infrastructure for bigger detachments or

additions and whatnot.

I have had many First Nations Chiefs come in to meet me in my

Prince George office just because they happen to be in Prince George on

business, and they’ll talk about the level of safety in their remote

communities.

A lot of the band offices are relocated to Prince George, for an

example, and there needs to be a safe environment for the other support

workers to come in, so the teachers, the social services workers, the

health care workers and whatnot. A lot of them don’t feel safe, so they

don’t go into those communities.

Will that be a consideration by the ministry to ensure that

there’s a safe environment for all the support workers that need to go

in and provide the services to make those communities healthy and

safe?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member, because that’s a really good point,

and it is something that we recognize as well. That’s part of the work

that, when we’re talking about Megan, the new ADM, is that holistic

approach and making sure that everything is working together. It’s not

just a case of putting more police officers in. You’re right. It is

about the safe space. That involves cross-ministries.

It also involves the local community as well. I’ll just give a

quick example. At the First Nations Leadership group, I met with the

Tahltan Band up near the Yukon border.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, not Dease Lake, further up and over. No, it wasn’t Iskut. It

was the other side. It was the other way from Iskut. Lower

Post.

They said during COVID, they had actually set up a checkpoint

staffed by Elders who were there during the day, because there’s only

one road in and only one road out. Cars would stop, and “Hey, where are

you going? Have you had a little too much to drink?” and just sort of

like community. What they noticed was the calls — because it is serviced

out of H division — dropped by about 50 percent.

[11:25 a.m.]

They came and said: “Look, we’d like to continue this. Can you

help us with a bit of funding?” It was: “Sure.” That, to me, is that

kind of example of what we do in government in terms of the ministry, my

ministry, the broader plan, in terms of ensuring everybody’s working

together and having those safe spaces, and also the local community

being part and parcel of the solutions that they know can work for their

particular situation.

The member raises a good point, and it’s very much one that we are

focused on in the safer communities plan.

M. Morris: I think it’s a good point. In Lower Post, working in collaboration

with M division, which is the Yukon…. I’m just wondering whether the

minister has met with any First Nations Chiefs from some of these remote

communities. I’ve asked them to contact you and or your office and meet

with you, over the last year or two, and I’m just wondering how many

have actually met with you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I was up in Prince George earlier this year. I think we contacted

your office. I did meet with, I think, about 15 representatives of

different na­tions up there. I know there were a number of Chiefs

there, and I’m more than happy to get you a list, if you like, of those

who were in attendance. We had a really good discussion,

and….

Let’s put this way: I think it would be an eye-opening discussion

for a number of people. It was very, very good.

M. Morris: I’ll probably get into a few more questions on First Nations

policing later on this afternoon here.

Can the minister tell us how many specialized sections the RCMP is

looking at, in increasing the establishment — or rebuilding, I suppose —

over the years? I go back to the days when I was a district officer up

in the North, and there was starting to be a bleed of specialized units

going into the Lower Mainland.

The federal serious and organized crime group morphed into CFSEU.

We lost commercial crime. We lost our federal resources up there. We

lost a number of the specialized units that were scattered throughout

the north district, to augment that.

We now have the organized crime and the gang issues, not just in

the Lower Mainland; they are provincewide. Prince George has been

inundated with homicides and issues related to the gang violence over

the years. If we can get a list of the specialized units that are being

looked at and being re-established throughout the province.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The focus is very much on the North and on the Southeast, major

crimes and the highway patrol, so obviously, the criminal activity but

within major crimes, the integrated child exploitation as well. That’s

very much the focus of what we’re wanting to see happen.

M. Morris: One of the other issues that has been brought to my attention…. At

one time, there was a dedicated criminal intelligence unit, based out of

the North, in Prince George. The northern district, my old district,

covered 75 percent of the province. It requires a lot of travel time, a

lot of dedication and work, to gain intelligence from all of the

communities, particularly in resource sector communities. We’ve had the

pipeline-building; we’ve got LNG Canada being built.

[11:30 a.m.]

Organized crime takes advantage of opportunities like that, but

we’ve seen a disappearance of those units and a complete degradation of

intelligence-gathering capability in the North because those units were

displaced down south. I’m hoping that that will be a priority for the

police, if the minister can make sure that this is an issue for

him.

We do know that travel for CFSEU was cut back a couple of years

ago, which really hindered their ability to do that

intelligence-gathering aspect of it.

The other question…. When I looked at the stats for the northern

part — for the whole province — for some reason, there seems to be a

higher incidence of domestic violence and persons crimes in the northern

region, particularly in our smaller communities. I’m wondering: will

there be any resources dedicated to domestic violence units throughout

northern British Columbia or through­out the province where we

don’t have the capability right now?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of the intelligence gathering, absolutely. That’s very

much a focus within the major crimes unit. I mean, that, to me, as you

and I have talked about in the past, is a critical component of

policing.

On the domestic violence units, there are domestic vio­lence

units in the province. I know that there is one in Prince George. One of

the things, obviously, we want to do is work with the RCMP in terms of:

“Okay, where are there gaps, or are there opportunities to place

additional resources?” Whether there’s a unit or not, that crime is

treated as a major crime by police to begin with.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie for the

opportunity to ask a few questions on the gender equity side.

The first question — I don’t expect an answer. I would ask that we

find an answer, and then just to report back in writing would be great.

That is, when and how many meetings has the minister had with the

Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity on the gender-based

vio­lence action plan?

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

that could be given.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will be happy to get you the information, and I can tell you

that I have met with her and I have had discussions with her on that

very plan.

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

the answer.

This is the next question. Could the minister confirm that the

B.C. Coroners Service has revised their investiga­tive protocols

to better capture essential IPV data, including searching the protection

order registry in all IPV deaths, as per the coroner’s own report

recommendation from the November 2016 coroners death panel review of

intimate partner violence?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify, are you wanting an answer on that right

now, or do you want me to get back to you?

R. Merrifield: That would be right now.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Okay. In which case, we do have the coroner here. So if I get the

coroner up, then we can answer the question for you.

R. Merrifield: I’ll wait for the coroner on that particular answer, and then I’ll

go to the next one, just in the interest of time.

On the crime victim assistance program, I understand that it

transitioned to a new case management system in 2022. Was every file

that was awaiting review accounted for and input into the new case

management system? Or were files lost?

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

answer for you.

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

many were lost?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m not aware if any were lost or the transfer…. But the

appropriate department of my ministry…. What I’ll do is I’ll make sure

that I get the answers for your question to you.

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

question again.

R. Merrifield: I’ll give her a moment to be seated and settle in. I’ll go on to

my next question, because it is related to the previous.

The other information that I’d like to know from this case

management system that was transitioned is: how many victims had to

resubmit their applications for assistance? How many were lost in that

transference? I would assume the minister has to get that, but he can

confirm it for me. What are the current waiting times for victim

assistance applications to receive a decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: To answer your question on the files, I can tell you that no files

were lost. There are still some historical documents that remain at Iron

Mountain, but all the files were successfully transferred to the new

system.

R. Merrifield: I actually have an email that talks about some of the…. This is

from the actual caseworker. It says: “We were transitioning to a new

case management system earlier this year and are still working out some

of the kinks.” This is actually from a lost file and asking for a

re-application.

So perhaps the minister could go back and take a look to see if

there were other files that were lost in the process of transference to

that and resubmit a different number on that.

I also will ask if the minister could outline how much the budget

for this particular crime victim assistance program was in each of the

last three years, and whether or not it’s fully staffed at this

point.

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

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: For the specific program — and then there are the overall programs

that deal with victims — it’s $18.2 million for the CVAP. Overall, it’s

$77.2 million, which includes the additional $10 million this year for

sexual assault centres.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the information. The last portion of

that question was just if it’s fully staffed. In the interest of time, I

just want to make sure we can get through all the questions, but that

was the last part.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is fully staffed, in that there are no vacancies being held or

positions not being filled.

[11:45 a.m.]

If you are sick or you go on mat leave, that’s a different story,

but there are no positions being held.

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

questions.

I’ll go back to my previous question now that the coroner is

present, and that was: could the minister confirm that the B.C. Coroners

Service has revised their investigative protocols to better capture

essential IPV data, including searching the protection order registry in

all IPV deaths, as per the coroner’s own report recommendation from the

November 2016 coroner death review panel of intimate partner

violence?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

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

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Copyright © 2023 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.