Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 1, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 279

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Homelessness prevention and rent banks

S. Chandra Herbert

One-year anniversary of invasion of Ukraine and support for displaced Ukrainians

S. Bond

Jen Marchbank and work on LGBTQ and gender

issues

J. Sims

Walter Tyrrell

T. Wat

Haven Society and domestic violence prevention

A. Walker

Quesnel Festival of the Performing Arts

C. Oakes

Oral Questions

Budget provisions for mental health and addiction services

K. Falcon

Hon. K. Conroy

E. Sturko

Hon. J. Whiteside

Budget priorities and performance measurement

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Budget priorities and action on climate change

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Access to cancer care services

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

K. Kirkpatrick

Access to cancer care services and medications

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

Petitions

M. Bernier

D. Ashton

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 23 — Membership change to Agriculture, Fish and Food Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Motion 24 — Membership change to Children and Youth Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Motion 26 — Membership change to Legislative Initiatives Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Motion 27 — Membership change to Public Accounts Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Budget Debate

(continued)

P. Milobar

S. Furstenau

S. Chant

E. Ross

J. Sims

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

A. Olsen

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2023

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Members, before I recognize other members, I wish to draw your

attention to the presence of the Hon. Anthony Rota, Speaker of the House of

Commons of Canada, on the floor of the House. In the gallery are his spouse,

Chantal Piché-Rota, and his chief of staff, Alex Mattard-Michaud.

Please

join me to give them a warm welcome.

C. Oakes: I am truly delighted this afternoon to have in the House a constituent

of mine. Steve Forseth is the president of the North Central Local

Government Association. Steve was elected in 2014. Together we have worked

on wildfires, floods, landslides and everything in between. He is a

tireless, fierce advocate for the Cariboo.

Would the House please make him

welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: Last night we were able to celebrate extra­ordinary care

providers in our province at the event sponsored by the B.C. Care Providers

Association. We wanted to welcome some of the people who were there. They

were welcomed last night by my colleague the member for Prince

George–Valemount, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors in

B.C., and the member for Vernon-Monashee.

It was a remarkable night. We want to welcome in particular — he was

here yesterday; he’s back today, and I think he’s getting used to regular

sittings here — my friend Terry Lake, the CEO of the B.C. Care Providers

Association. Ron Pike, the board president, is here. There are lots of board

members. We’re trying to narrow this down. It’s changed since you were here,

Terry.

We wanted to particularly recognize Cathy Szmaus, who did an

incredible job organizing the event last night, as she does every year.

We’re really honoured by all of her work.

We have four winners, as well, that I want to recognize today:

Patricia Asto, Cathy Naismith, Cathy Baysic and Karen Biggs. They were

spectacular last night. They all spoke, I think, from the heart in an

exceptional way. I thank all of them, all the people who were honoured, and

all the people who joined us last night.

I want the House to make them all welcome today.

L. Doerkson: Today it’s indeed a pleasure to introduce Sheila Boehm. She is a

full-time chiropractor and, in the balance of her life, she is a fierce

advocate for the city of Williams Lake and the residents that live in

it.

She is a city councillor, and she will be taking the reins from

Stephen Forseth at the NCLGA. They are of course here today, meeting with

both sides of the House. Thank you very much.

Please make Sheila very

welcome.

Hon. D. Coulter: Today I’d like to introduce a guest in the gallery who joins us today

from my constituency of Chilliwack. Erin Osborne is the vice-president of my

constituency executive and an advocate for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community in

Chilliwack. She has spent countless hours researching and advocating for

rainbow sidewalks. This offers our city a bright and colourful way to bring

inclusion and diversity and sends the message that all people are loved and

safe in our community.

[1:40 p.m.]

It is said that Chilliwack possibly has more rainbow crosswalks today

than any other municipality in our prov­ince, thanks to people like

Erin.

Would the House please welcome Erin.

Hon. A. Kang: In my role as Minister for Municipal Affairs, I have the honour of

working with many local government associations. Today in the gallery I have

two special guests, Steve Forseth and Sheila Boehm. They represent the North

Central Local Government Association. Steve Forseth is the President and

Cariboo regional district area director and Sheila Boehm is the NCLGA first

vice president and city of Williams Lake councillor.

This morning we had the opportunity to discuss many very important

issues that are very important to the north central local government. I look

forward to working with all of them in the future and the days to come. I

also look forward to attending their convention and hearing from their

delegates. Thank you.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Bond: I want to join with the Minister of Health and obviously the

parliamentary secretary as we welcome a number of incredible individuals to

the Legislature today. Last night was nothing short of inspiring, and I

would encourage members to go and look at the videos that have been posted

by the B.C. care providers in terms of the award winners and their

unbelievable care for some of our older British Columbians. The theme last

night was certainly about gratitude. Those of us who have had elderly

parents cared for, elderly loved ones, we expressed our gratitude. So

congratulations on behalf of the official opposition.

It was a night of celebration, but it was also a night of reminding us

that policy decisions matter, resources and support for seniors matter. I

know everyone in this House will want to do their best to make sure that our

most frail and elderly British Columbians are always well taken care

of.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like the House to welcome four prominent constituents of mine from

the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head: Mr. Val Rundans, Cathy Rundans, Tom

Holland and Diane O’Neill. I went to high school with Val Rundons and Kathy

Rundons back in St. Catharines a few years ago and they of course saw the

light and moved to Oak Bay–Gordon Head and lived happily ever

after.

Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Olsen: I join the Minister of Health, the parliamentary secretary and the

member for Prince George–​Vale­mount in welcoming the B.C. Care

Providers, but I’m not just doing it to also introduce people that have

already been introduced. I do want to shine a light on one of the award

winners last night.

It’s my honour to welcome into the Legislative Assembly today Cathy

Naismith. Cathy works for the Beacon Community Association and was awarded

the B.C. Care Provider of the Year Award for long-term care. Cathy has been

working as a health care aide at Beacon Community Association’s dementia

care homes for the last eight years.

It’s people like Cathy who are so dedicated in the care and support

they give to our seniors in our community of Saanich North and the Islands

and across the province to give us hope and confidence that our loved ones

are being given the best care.

Could everyone in the House please congratulate Cathy for her

accomplishments and as well welcome her into this House.

Hon. B. Bailey: I just want to take a very quick moment to wish my mother, Rhonda

Bailey, of Nanaimo, B.C., a happy birthday. Her birthday was yesterday.

There were other important matters yesterday, but today please join me in

wishing Rhonda Bailey a happy 76th birthday.

S. Chant: I would like to introduce a guest of mine. I actually have a

constituent here from North Vancouver–​Seymour, which is very

exciting. Tina Ebrahimi works with her family in our area on a family

business, supporting local entrepreneurs and other small

businesses.

I would hope that the House would please make her welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

H. Yao: I do want to take a moment to join all my MLA colleagues from Richmond

to welcome a bunch of athletes coming back from the Canada Games. I welcome

back the Richmond figure skating B.C. team: Jessie Sun, Mitchell Dunn, Ava

Cheung, Stephen Lee, Louie Fukuda-Wu, Emily Liao and Vicky Pan. I also want

to welcome back Ocean and Spring Ma from team squash and Haruki Mori from

the karate competition.

I would ask the House to join me and welcome them back, our team B.C.,

as they have scored quite an exceptional achievement at the Canada

Games.

Hon. M. Dean: I have a dear friend here today in the gallery. It’s Christine

Bhopalsingh. She’s a wellness manager for the Canadian Coast Guard, and she

actually lives in Victoria–Swan Lake.

She’s here as my guest today because she does so much great work in

the West Shore. She’s actually the volunteer chair of the board of the West

Shore Arts Council, and she is also an alumna of Royal Roads University, as

well, having graduated in 2014 with a certificate in executive

coaching.

Would everyone please make her very welcome.

H. Yao: Again I’m going to be joining my colleagues from Richmond sending off

our phenomenal athletes to the B.C. Winter Games. These are individuals from

the Gum Ying Richmond Archery Club: Mia Zhang, Brayden Fung, Nathania So,

Brendan Chan, Jamison Hui, Dawn Yip, Gavin Ng and Markus Tai.

I wanted to just ask everybody to join me in wishing them good luck at

the B.C. Winter Games.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION

AND RENT

BANKS

S. Chandra Herbert: One of the first reasons that I decided to enter into politics at

the provincial level was the challenge of homelessness. Too many people

in my community were ending up on the streets due to illegal evictions,

poverty, missed cheques, missed payments.

While we can build more affordable housing and supportive housing

to help people who become homeless, I often think it’s just as important

that we work on the reasons someone is to become homeless.

I want to celebrate the B.C. Rent Bank and the network of rent

banks across this province. Now, for those that don’t know what a rent

bank is, it’s something I learned too. A constituent had come to me. She

was sleeping in her van. She missed some payments on rent because she’d

been sick and had to take the time off work. She’d been living close to

the edge. She said to me: “If I had just had a small loan that I could

have paid the landlord, I could have kept my home. I wouldn’t have lost

my things. I wouldn’t have lost my job, and I wouldn’t have had to sleep

in my van for two years.”

So my office got to work. We pulled together the Vancity Community

Foundation, NICCSS, the city of Vancouver, the Streetohome Foundation,

and we founded the Vancouver rent bank. We had a small rent bank

operating in the east side but nothing for the West End and nothing for

the rest of Vancouver. That foundation, that start, helped thousands of

people stay in their homes from about 2012 or 2013 on up to

now.

It wasn’t enough for just Vancouver, because we know there are

these stories in all of our communities. You all know people. You’ve all

heard from people coming to your offices, needing that help. Desperate,

nowhere to turn. Maybe they don’t have family. Maybe they’ve just moved

there. Maybe they’re at the end of their limit.

Rent banks can help those people now in every part of this

province. Our government invested in them because we believe you should

help before somebody becomes homeless.

That’s just as important as helping somebody when they are

homeless.

ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF

INVASION OF UKRAINE AND

SUPPORT FOR DISPLACED UKRAINIANS

S. Bond: Just a few days ago in this House, we solemnly acknowledged the

one-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin.

Similar gatherings took place across the province.

In Prince George, despite bitterly cold minus 26 degrees, people

gathered at city hall for a candlelight vigil to remember victims of the

war and to stand in solidarity with those fighting on the front

lines.

Among those who attended were many Ukrainian families who have

been forced to flee their country and have found a new home in our

community. One of participants said: “Even though our bodies are here in

Canada, our souls are still in Ukraine.”

[1:50 p.m.]

Prince George residents have opened their hearts and their homes

to almost 170 displaced Ukrainians, with another 79 inbound or in

discussions, and those are the ones we are aware of. Since the beginning

of the invasion, volunteers have worked tirelessly to ensure that

families are greeted at the airport, that they have a home to stay in.

Clothing, furniture, transportation. The list of supports is endless,

and the generosity of our residents is immeasurable.

Just this past weekend, the Hart Ski Hill hosted a night of skiing

or snowboarding for all Ukrainian families. Everything was at no cost,

including the equipment, the lift pass and ski lessons. It was an

unbelievable night, and just one of the acts of kindness that I have

seen repeatedly.

None of this would have been possible without amazing volunteers

like Eva Gillis; Dick Mynen; Don and Mary Antoshko; Charles Scott;

former MLA Pat Bell and his family; of course, Father Andrii; and a host

of others. I want them to know how grateful we are for their ongoing

dedication and hard work.

I could not be more proud of my community and region,

demonstrating once again why I absolutely love where I live.

JEN MARCHBANK AND WORK ON

LGBTQ AND GENDER

ISSUES

J. Sims: Every one of us has amazing champions and supporters. For me, Dr.

Jen Marchbank is one of those individuals.

Jen has taught at eight universities in four different countries

and has called SFU and Surrey her home since 2005. Her area of

specialization is gender, sexuality and women’s studies. Her academic

accomplishments include the SFU Excellence in Teaching Award, as well as

publications covering topics like elder abuse in the LGBTQ community,

gender identity, trans youth and resilience, and relationship violence.

Plus Jen spends time volunteering and mentoring youth.

In 2012 she and her wife, Sylvia, cofounded Youth for a Change, an

organization that helps LGBTQ youth in the community support, educate

and advocate. She is also a director for SheTalks, an open platform

where women can share their stories and have their voices

heard.

Jenn has been a member of the Surrey Pride Society, has served on

the executive in various roles and is currently the vice-president. Most

recently she was a strong voice who successfully helped advocate for the

pride flag to be flown at city hall during Pride Month.

Dr. Marchbank has curated interactive art exhibits and has hosted

podcasts facilitating discussions between youth and elders within the

rainbow community. Last year, Jen received the YWCA Women of Distinction

Award for excellence in research, teaching and training. Whenever

Surrey-Panorama riding needs her she is there, volunteering her time,

helping to ensure her community represents what is important to

her.

On her LinkedIn page, she describes herself as an academic,

activist, community-focused educator, passionate about youth and social

justice. To that list, I would add “friend” and family.”

Thank you, Dr. Jen Marchbank, for everything you do. You are a

true champion.

WALTER TYRRELL

T. Wat: Today I rise to remember and celebrate the life of Walter P.

Tyrrell, one of Richmond’s most-loved, service-driven and inspirational

residents. Walter, who became one of the RCMP’s most dedicated

volunteers, passed away peacefully in his care home facility a few weeks

ago.

Walter’s life was full of remarkable achievements and selfless

contributions to his community. Born in Alberta in 1926, he joined the

Royal Australian Air Force at just 16 years old. After the Second World

War, Walter returned to Canada and joined the RCMP in 1951, where he had

a long and distinguished career that spanned over two decades. He was

also heavily involved with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, serving as the

commander of both 692 Air Cadet Squadron and 655 Richmond Air Cadet

Squadron.

In 2001, Walter began volunteering at Richmond RCMP. For more than

20 years, he logged more than 20,000 volunteer hours promoting public

safety in our community. His contributions to the RCMP and the city of

Richmond were second to none, and he received many accolades for his

work, including a Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers and a lifetime

membership award from the Royal Canadian Legion.

[1:55 p.m.]

Walter’s legacy lives on through the Richmond RCMP Staff Sgt.

Walter P. Tyrrell Atrium Museum, which is dedicated to his name and is

currently being developed. Today, we mourn the loss of Walter Tyrrell,

but we also celebrate his life and the many contributions he made to the

community.

The people of Richmond shall miss him dearly, and we will all

remember him for being a shining example of a life dedicated to public

service.

HAVEN SOCIETY AND

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

PREVENTION

A. Walker: Domestic violence is a serious problem affecting individuals and

families all across this province. Domestic violence impacts families

and people of all ages, genders and backgrounds, but women are

disproportionately affected. According to the World Health Organization,

one in three women worldwide has been subjected to either physical or

sexual violence in their lifetime.

For nearly 50 years, Haven Society has been working tirelessly in

Nanaimo and Parksville to support and em­power individuals who are

facing challenges related to violence, housing insecurity and,

increasingly, mental health issues. This non-profit organization

provides a wide range of services for our community, including rapid

shelter and crisis supports, transitional housing, counselling and

education.

Last week I had the privilege of meeting with their executive

director, Lisa Scott, and together we toured the facility in Nanaimo.

Meeting some of the passionate people who work for Haven Society

firsthand, I can say with confidence this organization is a shining

example of what can be achieved when a community comes together to

support one another. Their dedication, compassion and unwavering

commitment to their mission is truly inspiring.

As a leading anti-violence organization committed to promoting

safety, respect and healthy relationships for women, children, youth and

families, Haven Society has a long history of providing supports in our

community. Their dedication to providing a range of services,

educa­tion and advocacy has made a significant impact in

preventing violence and supporting those affected by it.

The work that the Haven Society does is truly life-changing. They

have helped countless individuals and families during their times of

greatest need, providing secure housing and nurturing the skills and

confidence that clients need to return to leading fulfilling lives. The

impact that this society has on our communities is

immeasurable.

Please join with me in recognizing the important work that Haven

Society has done in Nanaimo and Oceanside.

QUESNEL FESTIVAL OF

THE PERFORMING

ARTS

C. Oakes: The Quesnel Festival of Performing Arts has recently wrapped up

their 40th anniversary celebration with their annual dance

competition.

Their annual festival provides incredible opportunities for

aspiring performers. The goal is to provide a positive and fun

environment where dancers can perform, learn, grow and meet other

performers and instructors. Fans also had the opportunity to enjoy some

outstanding talent.

It was a welcome economic boost to the area, which hosted over 150

dancers and showcased over 500 entries in fewer than three days. Dancers

from all over British Columbia attended Quesnel’s local dance festival

to take in all that there was to offer: live performances, professional

adjudication, workshops and a shot at being recommended to attend the

Performing Arts B.C. provincial competition in Penticton May 28 to June

Days were long, competition was tough, but the dancers gave it

their all. The adjudicators with them were im­pressed with the

level of talent and commitment by all the performers. Outstanding

performers were awarded certificates, medals, trophies and very

important scholarships throughout the competition. Winners included many

from Quesnel and area. Congratulations to you all.

The Quesnel Festival of the Performing Arts is a not-for-profit

society run by a group of incredible volunteers who are devoted to

sparking and encouraging a lifelong passion for performing arts. Over

the years, these incredible volunteers have helped foster performing

arts by encouraging students to do all of their best.

Please help me welcome this incredible group of

individuals.

[2:00 p.m.]

Oral Questions

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR MENTAL

HEALTH AND ADDICTION

SERVICES

K. Falcon: Yesterday’s budget was a huge disappointment for British

Columbians, with record high debt and projected deficits coupled with

record low results.

After two terms of NDP government, we’re now left with the highest

housing prices in North America. We now find ourselves with the longest

cancer wait times in the country. Tragically, six people every day are

dying of drug overdoses. If, like the NDP, you are going to max out the

provincial credit card, it would sure be nice if you had some results

that you could show for that maxing out.

Nowhere is this more clear than in Mental Health and Addictions,

where the Premier hinted at big change but failed to deliver. Nothing

that eliminates user fees that are a barrier to access. Nothing about

actually reducing the already unforgivable wait times.

Not a dollar allocated to build any mental health and addiction

recovery communities around the province. None of that is in there.

Sadly, this government’s entire focus is almost completely on publicly

supplied addictive drugs and decriminalizing hard drugs like heroin,

cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl.

Why did the Premier raise false hope and deliver so little for

addictions treatment and recovery?

Hon. K. Conroy: When we formed government, the substance use treatment system in

this province was in complete disrepair. We are making historic

investments to improve access to treatment, so when people ask for help,

help is available for them.

Budget 2023 invests $1 billion to expand services over the

continuum. I’ll repeat that: $1 billion to expand services over the

continuum of care; 195 new treatment beds to start and many more as we

expand regional care; a new model of seamless care to support people in

the recovery journey; new recovery communities to support people after

they leave treatment; accelerating our response to the toxic drug

crisis, including prescribed safer supply, more complex care housing for

people who need higher levels of support.

We are also bringing more crucial services to regions right

throughout the province, expanding Red Fish Healing Centre care,

expanding Road to Recovery for seamless care, because when people need

the care, they need to access it, and we are going to provide

that.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, sadly, that’s not what’s actually in the budget. The fact of

the matter is that this government loves to talk about how much more

they’re spending, but what they don’t realize is that we’re getting

worse results as a result of their increased spending.

Adding five treatment and recovery beds a month over the next

three years is hardly the kind of bold action that British Columbians

were hoping to see. The fact of the matter is that there are huge gaps

between what we’ve been calling for as an opposition and what the

Premier has proposed in this budget. As we say, we urgently need to move

away from their primary focus on publicly supplied addictive drugs and

decriminalization over towards a focus on treatment and recovery so we

can actually help people get off their addiction and get

better.

What should have been at the very top of government’s list, at

minimum, is to ensure that there was free and ready availability and

access to treatment and recovery, regardless of their economic

circumstances or regardless of where they live in the province. That

would have been sort of the bare minimum.

Instead we are going to be left with the same long wait-lists and

exorbitant fees that are creating significant barriers to access. Nobody

in this province should have to sell their car or mortgage their home to

try and get care and treatment for loved ones. Nobody.

Why did the budget fail to remove the barriers to access for

treatment and recovery and make addiction treatment free?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We know that the largest barrier to accessing treatment is having

services available when and where they need it. Many beds don’t have

user fees, and our new beds will not have user fees.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: Financial supports are available to help people access those beds

if they need them. We’re continuing to build more treatment and recovery

services around the province.

Don’t just take this from us. Don’t just take it from me. I want

to quote Jonny Morris, the CEO of the Canadian Mental Health

Association, B.C. division. He said: “I would say the word ‘historic’

does fit. I’ve never seen the number $1 billion in the same sentence as

mental health and substance use care in my 25 years of being in

community health.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: “It’s an increase in a previous historic investment in this space.

We absolutely acknowledge and welcome this level of attention. It’s

quite remarkable. Today is historic.”

E. Sturko: My first reaction to the NDP addiction and mental health plan is

actually sadness. Like so many people in British Columbia, I had

actually hoped that all financial barriers would be removed for all

forms of addictions and mental health treatment — not just proposed

future beds, all treatment beds.

While the NDP made a big deal about listening to our Better is

Possible plan, the harsh reality is that there is no sign of the Red

Fish expansion or recovery communities in the capital plan. Even

projects that are listed, like the treatment centre on East 1st and

Clark that was promised in 2018 — delayed to 2026 by this budget. It’s

simply unacceptable when six people a day are dying.

My question is: why is there no funding, no timeline, not even a

hint of an opening date for the much-needed expansion of the Red Fish

Healing Centre?

Hon. K. Conroy: This budget invests $169 million…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: …over three years, to build more complex care housing. We see the

urgent need for this critical service. That is capital funding to

support people who need the care when they need it. It also invests in

operating funding to ensure that we can provide those services and

resources to the people when they need them.

We know that we are expanding services across the province. We

know that we are expanding the Red Fish services. We’re expanding that

model of service so that we can provide those services.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. K. Conroy: I know that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is going

to welcome the opportunity to roll out this plan and to show the

significant details of how we are going to provide services right across

the province.

I don’t understand why the opposition thinks $1 billion is no

money.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: Perhaps, later on, the Minister of Finance will gladly point out

the page where it indicates the capital expenditures for these

investments.

We talk about care when people need it. We keep hear­ing the

Finance Minister, and we’ve heard it before from other ministers in this

House, talk about providing British Columbians with care when they need

it. Yet we’ve had people dying on wait-lists waiting for care. They

needed care in the years since you formed government. They need it

today. They needed it yesterday. They need it immediately.

[2:10 p.m.]

The reality is the gaps between this budget and a real plan that

prioritizes treatment and recovery are massive. Better is possible, and

this budget falls short.

Despite people waiting months for treatment beds in B.C., the

budget only promises to add five treatment beds a month over the next

three years. While people are dying on wait-lists, the best the service

plan can say is that they hope to maintain current waiting-list

times.

Why, after all the Premier’s rhetoric, would the NDP stick with

the deadly status quo of wait-list delays and costly fees?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. Indeed, I’m grateful to the

official opposition, to all parties in this House, for their, I would

say, relatively recent interest, on the part of the opposition, in this

question.

The fact is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members, shhh.

Members, order.

The minister will continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Since 2017, we have been addressing the fragmentation in the

mental health and substance use system that existed when we formed

government. We know, and I think all members of this House know…. This

was the subject of much discussion during the select standing

committee…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …for which we are very grateful — for the input from British

Columbians, for the commitment demonstrated across all members of this

House.

Since 2017, we have invested unprecedented resources in building

up our treatment and recovery resources, in building up upstream

resources…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …in building on the good model of the Foundry, which was a model

that came from the other side.

I am quite happy…. I think what British Columbians expect from the

discussions that we have in this House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …is to recognize that good ideas come from many places.

It’s important that we are evidence-driven in the work that we do.

That is the work that we are doing right now with our health

authorities, with the Provincial Health Services Authority, with our

front-line providers, to look at how we are needing to scale up and

invest the unprecedented $1 billion investment this budget makes in

mental health and substance use treatment for British

Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I will just say that when it comes to the fragmented landscape of

beds we inherited in 2017, there are, in fact, under the work that we

have done to scale up treatment beds, more treatment beds that are free

of fees than there have ever been in this province — right now — as the

result of investments that we have made.

We’re going to be looking at how we do more of that with the

investments we’ve made.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we have another Speaker in the House. Let’s show him how

good we are, okay?

BUDGET PRIORITIES

AND PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT

S. Furstenau: In yesterday’s budget, this Premier had an opportunity to rise to

the challenges we face today by building community health centres or

ensuring that there is accessible transit across our province. We could

have had preventative mental health care and brought people with

disabilities out of poverty.

Let that sink in for a moment. We’ve been pleading for this

so-called progressive NDP government, a majority government, to do the

bare minimum and lift people with disabilities out of poverty, and they

didn’t do it. We could have strengthened our communities and focused on

the well-being of British Columbians.

The Premier has a majority government, a $6 billion surplus and an

$80 billion budget. But instead of creating systems change, some renters

will get an extra $33 a month, six years after the government promised

it.

One-off rebates, unmet promises and holding up old ideas are not

going to make change. This is a budget that delivers status quo in a

time when leadership is needed. I would argue that we will always get

status quo as long as we keep using GDP to measure success instead of

following the lead of other countries, which are budgeting and measuring

their economies with well-being.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question is to the Premier. How is he going to measure

success?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I’ll tell the member what

measures success is: putting in a budget that supports people, putting a

budget forward that’s going to support people right across this

province. It makes record investments in supports to people with costs

and puts more money in people’s pockets.

I have gotten so much feedback, so many emails and texts, from

people who are so grateful for the free contraception. We’re hearing

from people who are saying…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh, shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: …the expansion of the K-to-12 school food programs is incredible

for people, like families across the spectrum, low income or not. They

are so happy, because families are saying: “We know that our kids are

going to school.” And teachers are saying to me that when those kids can

get those healthy meals, they can learn better. So we’re hearing that as

well.

I don’t understand. The member is almost chastising. This is the

first time since 2006 there is an increase to the shelter rate for

persons with disability, the first time that there is an increase for

persons on income assistance. We have to look at these things. There are

many other things in the budget — many other things — that are

contributing to affordability in this province.

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

BUDGET PRIORITIES

AND ACTION ON CLIMATE

CHANGE

S. Furstenau: It’s very interesting to me, because the difference between a

status quo and a GDP-oriented as opposed to well-being would be that we

would move to universal food programs in schools; that we wouldn’t

increase the shelter rate by $125, but we would ensure that people with

disabilities are lifted out of poverty. This is the difference between

status quo and leadership.

Another thing is clear. This is not a climate leader’s budget. In

the Fraser Valley, damage from the atmospheric river is estimated to

have been $17 billion. Yet climate is little more than an afterthought

in this budget. In fact, this budget reduces the three-year funding of

CleanBC by $300 million — reduces it.

A climate leader’s budget would stop shortsighted investments. It

would have enough money to protect our communities from inevitable fires

and floods. It would have a restoration economy at its core, with

good-paying jobs for years to come. It would invest in community-based,

clean energy, not doubling down on expanding fracking. A climate leader

would not rely on a panel of 13 people, 12 of them bankers, to guide its

decision-making. It would look to the solution-makers across B.C. who

care about their communities.

My question is to the Premier. Let me point out again, a $300

million reduction to funding in CleanBC, this government’s favourite

shield. Why is climate an afterthought in this budget?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, in Budget 2023, we are investing $1.4 billion in clean,

sustainable futures. We’re expanding active transportation networks.

We’re pricing carbon pollution. We’re bringing in eight new forest

landscape planning tables to work with First Nations to protect more old

growth and support sustainable forestry.

Over $100 million is for parks and other recreation sites and

more funding for the CleanBC Go Electric commercial vehicle pilot

program to help businesses move to commercial zero-emission

vehicles.

We’re increasing the climate action tax credit, so that when the

carbon tax does rise, people will actually get money to complement that.

We’re making sure that we’re putting more money back into people’s

pockets. We’re making sure that we’re supporting people in this

province. That’s what this budget is about. It’s supporting

people.

ACCESS TO CANCER CARE SERVICES

S. Bond: Every day in British Columbia, we hear that British Columbia has

gone from leading the country to being the worst in the country for

cancer care wait times.

[2:20 p.m.]

Francis Tran, a former Comox Valley resident, died from liver

cancer last year, after a devastatingly long wait to see an oncologist.

He was brought to the ER by his family in March, where the doctors

discovered a ten-centimetre liver tumor. Despite the urgency of his

situation, Tran waited for 11 excruciating weeks before receiving his

first appointment with an oncologist.

It proved too late. According to his daughter, Shannon Tran: “Had

he received medication in April or May, he would have had a chance, but

having to wait the 11 weeks, so much growth of the cancer had

happened.”

After two terms and six years of the NDP government, how many more

people like Francis Tran must suffer and die because of this

government’s failure to provide timely care?

Hon. A. Dix: Cancer care, when a cancer diagnosis comes, needs to come, and it

needs to come quickly. That’s why in successive budgets….

The member talks about one case. We know how people feel in those

circumstances. We know it in all of our families, in everybody’s family

in B.C. That’s why, over the last number of years, we have added

physicians in cancer care every year, provided money for it, recruited

for it, and we have to continue to do so.

It’s why in this budget and last Friday, the Premier of British

Columbia announced a ten-year cancer plan that addresses issues around

prevention, diagnosis, treatment and research that will build out and

strengthen our cancer system — $440 million in this first period, with

more to come — because these are priorities for everybody and every

family. It’s why we have to deliver such care in the public health care

system.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–​Vale­mount,

supplemental.

S. Bond: What we do know is that British Columbia went from first to worst

under this minister’s leadership. He can shake his head all he wants,

but the Canadian Cancer Society cancer statistics report said that B.C.

had the overall best cancer survival rates in Canada in 2015.

Announcements mean nothing to people who are waiting 11 weeks to

see an oncologist in this province. The minister can tout all the

announcements he wants, but what British Columbians want is something

different.

I know the minister knows that it is vastly different for

thousands of women diagnosed every year with gynecological cancer in our

province. Maybe the minister would like to hear what oncologist Dr.

Sarah Finlayson said: “It’s heartbreaking. The wait times are the

longest they’ve ever been in my career. The moral distress among our

group is the highest it has been in my career.” Plain and simple, this

government is failing women with gynecological cancers.

Two terms, six years. How on earth can the minister stand in this

House and say that it’s a priority, when women are forced to endure

completely unacceptable wait times?

Hon. A. Dix: The member talks about statistics. It is true that in terms of

cancer outcomes, British Columbia is second in the country and not first

in the country. It’s absolutely our intention to be first in the

country.

Well, the information is the information, but I think what I try

and do, and what we are doing, is that when we see problems, we address

problems.

I’ll just give you an example. With respect to gynecological

cancer, we added 21 surgical days, 20 hours a week in this most recent

period, to address issues of waits. That means practical things. It

means surgeries for people who need surgeries. That’s the kind of action

the B.C. Cancer Agency is taking. That’s the kind of action that is

supported, specific, precise, has happened, delivering care to people

right here and right now, in a ten-year plan that we’ll build out for

what we know will be an increase in demand.

[2:25 p.m.]

Twice as many people over 75 in ten years means more age-related

cancer. We have to continue to do what we’re doing, which is to take all

the actions required to prevent cancer and to provide diagnosis, care

and treatment. With respect to gynecological oncology services, we have

acted, in the last few weeks, to ensure that people get more access to

care, and we will continue to do so.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe I just heard the minister saying that the work that

they’ve done in the last few weeks and just recently announced is a

ten-year cancer plan that, as originally announced, was going to happen

in 2017.

These answers mean nothing for Anna Cain, who was diagnosed with

gynecological cancer and is stuck waiting for care. For the last two

years, Anna and her husband, Jeff, would wake up at 6 a.m. in the

morning and drive from Qualicum Bay to a walk-in clinic in Courtenay,

where they would wait in line, hoping to receive basic medical

attention.

Despite

making 16 visits last year, Anna was only given blood tests and no other

tests or antibiotics for her bouts of constipation, diarrhea and

bloating. Last month, Anna was diagnosed — because these are symptoms —

with ovarian cancer. This was done in a crowded emergency room, her

alone in a room, and she was told to get her affairs in order. As Anna

says: “Our system is totally broken.”

After 52 years of marriage, Anna and her husband, Jeff, are left

to sit by the phone, day after day, worrying and waiting, while they

wait to maybe get an appointment in the next month with an

oncologist.

To the Premier, what does he have to say to Anna and Jeff and the

hundreds of other couples and their families and their children who come

to us on a daily basis, desperate for cancer care?

Hon. A. Dix: We have taken action, and we are taking action. In the last two

budgets, that’s $66 million incremental, to hire 70¼ FTE physician roles

in our cancer system, which is a significant improvement. This includes

41 new medical and radiation oncologists.

We have to continue to take action to do that. Yesterday, in their

response to the budget, the opposition Finance critic was critical of

the changes we’ve made to improve compensation and supports for doctors,

including oncologists. I disagree with that. There is an international

competition. This is, I believe the best place in the world to provide

care. We are, we have been, and we will be actively recruiting more

oncologists.

All cases where people are dealing with cancer cause enormous

challenges for families. We all know this. That’s why the B.C. Cancer

Agency has taken action and is going to continue to take action and why

British Columbia needs the ten-year cancer plan announced and delivered

by the Minister of Finance in this budget. That’s why we’re going to

continue to work to improve care everywhere in B.C.

ACCESS TO CANCER CARE

SERVICES AND

MEDICATIONS

T. Stone: Well, again, here today, we listen to the Minister of Health

rattle off statistics. There’s always a lot of a lot of rhetoric that

that is thrown out in this chamber from the Minister of Health as he

tries to portray a system that is actually in collapse. What the

minister says, and the details that he throws out there, do not line up

with the actual experiences of real people, a number of whom we have

profiled here again today.

The reality is that under this minister, under this government,

B.C. has amongst the worst cancer care wait times in the country. Only

20 percent of cancer patients are seen within the recommended two weeks.

That compares to 75 percent of patients in Ontario who are seen within

that recommended two-week time frame. That is just one

example.

[2:30 p.m.]

I want to talk about another case, another individual, another

person. Linda van Hoof is a 77-year-old resident of the village of

Chase, and she has been living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, a

life-threatening disease. After undergoing back-to-back chemotherapy

treatments, Linda was living a vibrant, healthy life for the past 15

years.

Linda’s body has now stopped responding to chemotherapy, and her

oncologist has recommended a drug called idelalisib as her only

remaining option. But here’s the problem: unlike many other provinces,

this drug isn’t funded here in British Columbia, and it costs $10,000 a

month.

Attempts by the family’s oncologist to have the government

reconsider and fund the drug have been denied. The situation is dire,

and Linda’s family is pleading for help. Linda’s daughter, Ali Maki,

asks: “How is it that there’s a drug that could give my mother more

years of life, but it’s not funded in the province we’ve resided in for

46 years, yet it’s funded in other provinces in Canada?”

My question to the minister is this. When will the minister be

accountable and fix B.C.’s broken cancer system for people like Linda

van Hoof, Francis Tran, Anna Cain and the countless other British

Columbians who are in similar circumstances, so that people in this

province can once again received the cancer care that they need, when

they need it?

Hon. A. Dix: I think, with respect to cancer drugs in this province, one of the

things that we do in B.C., and they do in other jurisdictions, is to

ensure that health care professionals, cancer specialists, make

decisions about those drugs.

In British Columbia, we see, on an annualized basis, 10 to 12

percent increases every year in our cancer drug expenditures,

dramatically increasing the availability of drugs every year for

patients. They’ve gone, in fact, in the short last four years, from

about $280 million to about $390 million. That means more care for

people, because we know that when care is available, we want people to

get access to cancer drugs.

That circumstance is in place in most jurisdictions in Canada.

It’s why, when we talk about access to cancer drugs, we have cancer

specialists make those decisions, as we did, by the way, when other

parties and other Ministers of Health were in office in this chair. That

was always the case. The reason it’s the case is you want that to be the

case; patients want that to be the case. The cancer specialists, in the

cancer process, make those decisions. They have consistently made those

decisions in favour of patients. You can see it in the expenditures

made, the expansion of drugs available, the continuing expansion of

drugs available.

It’s also why you need continued investment in this public health

care system, which the budget presented by the Minister of Finance does,

because you can see new drugs are expensive. They cost a lot of money,

and that’s why we are expanding dramatically, making historic

investments in the B.C. Cancer Agency and the Ministry of Health to

ensure that those drugs are available now and into the

future.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Bernier: I rise in the House to present a petition of over 3,000 signatures

collected by the concerned citizens for crime prevention of Dawson Creek.

Petitioners are respectfully requesting that the honourable House and

minister reform the catch-and-release program that is currently being

enforced by this government and provide more resources and direction for

RCMP and Crown prosecutors to charge and convict repeat

offenders.

D. Ashton: It’s an honour to present a petition, like my peer from Peace River

South, from the very concerned citizens and businesses of Penticton,

Summerland and area asking for the Attorney General and the Premier of

British Columbia to reform the current catch-and-release program and provide

more resources and additional direction to the RCMP and Crown counsel to

charge, convict and, I will add, incarcerate repeat offenders.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 23 on the order paper.

[2:35 p.m.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 23 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND

FOOD COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 23, with respect to the membership on the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food, standing in my name on

the order paper.

[That Megan Dykeman replace Kelly Greene as a

member of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and

Food.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 24 on the order paper.

MOTION 24 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 24, with respect to the membership on the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth, standing in my name on the

order paper.

[That Michele Babchuk replace Kelli Paddon as a

member of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 26 on the order paper.

MOTION 26 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

LEGISLATIVE

INITIATIVES COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 26, with respect to the membership on the Select

Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives, standing in my name on

the order paper.

[That Spencer Chandra Herbert replace Mable Elmore

as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Legislative

Initiatives.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 27 on the order paper.

MOTION 27 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 27, with respect to the membership on the Select

Standing Committee on Public Accounts, standing in my name on the order

paper.

[That Spencer Chandra Herbert replace Fin Donnelly

as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, in this House, I call continued debate on the

budget.

In Committee A, I call supplementary estimates for the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, everyone.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson to continue.

P. Milobar: Thank you. I’m pleased to stand and continue my remarks from

yesterday. Obviously, in the spirit of time, yesterday I wasn’t able to get

into the whole budget. It also afforded the evening to dig into things just

a little bit more.

I want to touch on a few other areas of this budget that are of

concern to the opposition and that should be of great concern to members of

the public as well, because history sometimes, in this place, does repeat

itself.

Although we roll our eyes when the current government mentions 16

years and things of that nature, and they roll their eyes and we talk about

the ’90s, there was one event in the ’90s that was of note. That was the

term “fudge-it budget.” That’s the moniker that this government party

managed to have created. We’ve heard it referenced recently with other

government programs. In terms of the Colwood collections building and the

calculations of how much over budget it is or it isn’t by this government

seems to be creative.

Why it’s important to note is that we haven’t seen something in a

budget happen since around 1997, when that was reared up. I’ll direct the

public’s attention to page 83 in the budget. In there, there’s a chart, and

it’s the ministry’s outlook for B.C. compared to the private sector. What

this is, is a chart that compares what the Ministry of Finance staff thinks,

for GDP growth, is going to happen in the province, versus the Economic

Forecast Council, which helps advise those same people in terms of economic

forecasts.

What we typically see in B.C. is an error on the side of caution, in

terms of what the Economic Forecast Council advises. This is a collection of

several different agencies around the province. I sat in on their update to

the former minister on her last couple of days before the cabinet shuffle.

They advise what they see for the long-term projections, in the current and

future years, for economic growth within the province.

Typically, for that level of caution that happens, the provincial

government will budget under that forecast GDP growth, to make sure that

they’re being very cautious in where they expect growth to be, especially on

revenues to help pay for things moving forward.

[2:40 p.m.]

A good example is, in 2023, this year, the government is doing that

once again, and it was 0.5 percent by the Economic Forecast Council. The

government budgeted, projecting 0.4 growth. They did that last year, 2.8

versus 3.0. The troubling

part is that when you look at years 2025, 2026 and

2027 in this budget book, the government has reversed that course, and

they’re actually exceeding the expectations of the Economic Forecast

Council.

Why that’s a concern is that when the Economic Forecast Council says

0.23 percent growth, instead of budgeting the usual 0.21 or 0.22, this

government is now forecasting 0.24, and this might interest the leader of

the Green Party in particular.

The interesting

part is…. I’ll read from it:

“The ministry’s near-term forecast for B.C.’s real GDP growth is lower

than the outlook provided by the Economic Forecast Council, with 0.2

percentage points of prudence in 2022 and 0.1 in both 2023 and 2024. This

differential is one of the levels of prudence built into the fiscal plan.

The ministry’s medium-term outlook is slightly higher than the average of

the Economic Forecast Council forecast to account for the anticipated

effects of LNG production over that period.”

Here we have a government that took until the last paragraph on page

15 of a 16-page speech to even mention the natural resource sector, who is

essentially, one could say, cooking the books in the future, not with a gas

range but with an LNG range. But they don’t actually want to acknowledge

LNG. They don’t want to acknowledge our natural resource sector, and that’s

troubling, because that is what generates a lot of the wealth in this

province, as witnessed by their own chart of projecting growth higher than

what all the experts are saying for British Columbia.

When they, on the one hand, want to talk about how they’re doing all

these great things to get us away from fossil fuels, the reality is that

their budget is still very much built on that. Now, obviously, this side of

the House, our party, fully supports LNG. I know we have a difference of

opinion of the Green Party on that. Fair enough. People can disagree in this

chamber. Frankly, we never waiver from that support. We don’t try to play

games with language out there so that people aren’t sure what is actually

happening or not happening.

Why that’s important is…. I referenced it yesterday, and I’m going to

put a little more detail to it today. When you look at the forestry

projected revenues for this year, at $846 million, and you consider that,

last year, this government had already projected the revenues for this

fiscal year to be $879 million, this government has spent a year planning

for what is exactly happening in our forestry industry.

They knew it was coming. They actually wanted it to happen. They

budgeted for it to happen, and now that it’s happening, they’re putting up

their hands and saying: “Oh, we didn’t know mills were going to close. Oh,

we’ll have to scramble and try to figure out a way to support workers and

communities.”

They took no meaningful action over the last 12 months to help all

these forest-dependent communities, despite the fact they were budgeting for

exactly what we’re seeing happening. Why that’s important is that indicates

a government that is unwilling to take on the heavy lifting when they see

rough troubles. Considering this budget is based on language around “tough

times ahead,” that should scare everyone in British Columbia.

Now, we’re not saying that they could have magically turned back the

clock and still collected that extra billion dollars in forestry revenues.

But they sure as heck could have done something to maybe minimize the

losses, maybe get that $840 million of revenue back up to $1.2 billion in

revenue, help a few forestry communities, help several hundred if not

thousands of millworkers and the related jobs that go with those

mills.

But that’s not what this government has chosen to spend their 12

months doing. They’ve done nothing meaningful to help these communities

transition or to modernize and advance things in the forestry sector to try

to keep it as a viable option for these communities. In fact, they have been

budgeting purposefully for its demise, and that’s shameful. That’s shameful

for all of those communities.

[2:45 p.m.]

I want to touch on a few other areas in the time that I have, to add a

little more depth to some of the comments I said yesterday.

The Minister of Health, in question period, said that I was being

critical of the doctors’ new pay structure. That is not what I was saying,

and that’s not what I was being critical of.

We acknowledge that the doctors, for a long time, have needed a new

way to be paid. What we’ve been saying all along is there is no way to tell

if the extra money going into the new agreement is actually accomplishing

anything or is actually making the situation any better, because this

government refuses to say what a good result would be.

The doctors’ agreement is a shining example. Is the government’s

intention with all this extra money and the new, reworked pay structure to

attract enough doctors to B.C. so that in five years only half a million

people in British Columbia no longer have a family doctor, instead of the

current million and growing? Is the government’s intention that it just

stems it and keeps it at a million year, over year, over year? We don’t

know, because the government won’t say.

That is what we’re critical about, because that is fundamentally at

the core of the problem with this government’s budget and their ongoing

programs. They don’t want to be held accountable to any measurable data that

would indicate success or not. What is the point of dumping billions upon

billions upon billions of dollars continually back into the same type of

programming when you don’t know if it’s actually accomplishing a good result

or not?

The results we’ve seen in health care over the last six years? Longest

wait times in Canada for a walk-in clinic, if you can find one. Kamloops has

no more walk-in clinics since this government took office. None. They’ve all

closed.

By the way, for all of you smaller communities or communities the size

of Kamloops that have an urgent primary care centre, forewarning: we were

the first urgent primary care centre in B.C. So get ready for what’s coming

into your neighbourhood soon, because it was after that opened that we

started seeing our walk-in clinics close.

The end result now is that one in five British Columbians don’t have a

family doctor and two in five in Kamloops don’t have a family doctor. That

has all developed under this government’s watch. So when I see health care

spending with no discernible targets and the same platitudes that we’ve seen

for seven budgets in a row, yeah, it gets frustrating.

And it’s not just myself. If you look at the quotes from stakeholder

groups and affected unions, BCNU president Aman Grewal said of this budget:

“All this money’s being invested in health infrastructure, but where are you

going to get the nurses from? We already have 5,325 vacancies here in B.C.

alone.” That’s the nurses union. So their concerns around trying to have

proper care standards for people haven’t been met by this budget.

Despite the money and infrastructure, most of it is go­ing to

cost overruns on projects that have been long announced, are long delayed,

and they also get rolled into this $37 billion of infrastructure being

spent, as if that’s all happening in this year. The vast majority of that

infrastructure spending is all on projects that have been announced over the

last few years, the vast majority of which are delayed and over

budget.

We’re not getting more for less money. We’re getting less for way more

money. There are only four new capital projects in this year’s budget, the

most expensive of which is the $224 million long-term-care facility. The

other three are less expensive than that. That’s it for new infrastructure

spending in this budget.

Why that’s particularly frustrating for someone like myself from

Kamloops is that three years ago, the former Premier stood in Kamloops in

October, during the snap COVID election that he called, and promised a

cancer centre to be operational in Kamloops, doors open, by the end of their

mandate, by the end of October 2024. That cancer centre, despite a ten-year

cancer plan, elicited one word of Kamloops in this budget and not one word

of it printed in the ten-year cancer plan. That’s how far behind we are

three years after a promise has been made on a facility everyone

acknowledges needs to get built.

[2:50 p.m.]

So when the province, when this government brags about $37 billion of

infrastructure and the residents of Kamloops have to feel like beggars to

try to get $40 million or $50 million to build a cancer centre, which the

Premier said would be like the one operating in Victoria, so we know what

the concept is, it’s pretty insulting.

When the Minister of Health stands up and talks about cancer results

and you’re from a city that for three years has been sitting, cap in hand,

and waiting for capital dollars to be approved on a project that everyone

agrees needs to be built…. Right now everyone is having to drive two hours

for treatment in Kelowna. If they can’t afford to stay there, they have to

drive back and forth, which actually creates the worst patient outcomes you

can imagine. It also services people from Williams Lake south.

It’s a huge strain on people. It’s a huge stress on people. People

don’t have their family supports as they’re going through treatment, on a

nightly basis, because a whole family cannot travel with them,

obviously.

Even the doctors in Kelowna agree. This isn’t a Kamloops versus

Kelowna debate like it usually is with health care. The doctors in Kelowna

agree. Kamloops needs this centre.

People will say: “Well, you had 16 years. Why didn’t you build it?” We

didn’t build it because there wasn’t the need, in terms of the number of

cancer patients, at the time.

It was supposed to, originally, have been built in Kamloops. If we go

back to the ’90s, that was an NDP election promise too. Right after they

formed government, they reversed course and located it in

Kelowna.

That equipment is at its end of life. It needs to be replaced. Over

the years that cancer centre has been open in Kelowna, it has done great

work, but two of the five linear accelerators are fully used by people in

Kamloops and the surrounding area now. It simply makes no sense to continue

having two machines out of five machines worth of people continuing to

travel two hours to get cancer treatment. Here we are, three years later,

and not even the capital money in the budget to get moving

forward.

How many years do people reasonably have to wait to even have access

to a local cancer centre, which the government actually has promised and

agrees needs to be done? That’s the lack of action and lack of results we’re

seeing in this budget.

Mental health and addictions. Again, where is the access to treatment?

Where is the ability to get into a bed that’s sitting empty currently?

Because it’s in a for-profit treatment centre, this government’s ideology

refuses to fund that for a person. This government is saying they’d rather

see someone struggling with addiction issues stay out on the street, causing

chaos and havoc in people’s neighbourhoods, than fund a bed that’s sitting

empty.

What’s the alternative they have proposed? They propose to build

regional centres. Today, when asked…. We could not even get a page number

from the Finance Minister of where that capital money is identified in this

budget. They reference a lump sum of money.

They obviously have no defined plans and no ability to move forward,

in a timely fashion, on an issue that people desperately need to literally

save their life. That’s not a result. That’s an abdication of responsibility

by this government.

When you look at our Better Is Possible plan, when you consider what

can be done…. You look at our Better Is Possible plan. That spells out $1½

billion of investment in mental health and addictions treatment and how

widely accepted, across the mental health spectrum of providers, it was

embraced. Then you look at the comments, post-budget, from people around

this plan that this government has presented.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s very clear. Treatment and recovery are not even their secondary

priority. It appears to be third, fourth or fifth on the list of what needs

to be done to help make people whole and healthy again, which also makes

communities whole and healthy again. But that’s not what this government

wants to focus on.

Seniors — precious little for them in this, precious little for

seniors in this budget. They were among the hardest hit in the pandemic, yet

very little in this budget.

Here’s what the employer’s health union had to say of the budget: “In

2020, the NDP government made a commitment that they would fix seniors care,

and we don’t see that money in this budget.” Not our words.

This is one of the biggest supportive unions of this government. Over

the years, one of the biggest donators, till the rules changed, to this

government. Those are their words about their government’s budget. “What

we’re disappointed with is that there’s no funding for long-term

care.”

That’s after a report from the seniors advocate declaring that B.C. is

the worst place in Canada to be a senior. Let that sink in. The worst place

in Canada to be a senior is in B.C. where, with our climate and people’s

ability to avoid snow at most times of the year, we attract seniors for

their retirement. It’s just like cancer care. Our quality of life has

dropped if you’re a senior.

Education. Carolyn Broady, president of the B.C. School Trustees

Association says: “This is a disappointing budget for B C’s. K-to-12

sector.” So although an expansion of a food program is good news — we agree

— there are obviously a lot more fundamental problems in education, in K to

12, going on than this government wants to admit and, sadly, they don’t want

to deal with.

There’s little new funding in this budget to build key new schools.

The one new school, ironically enough, is actually in Kamloops–South

Thompson. That was announced in this budget, except this government

announced it…. Literally, this is the third budget since they first agreed

that the school needed to be built, and in budget estimates, they agreed to

that school moving forward. It took them three budgets to actually put the

money in the budget, though. That’s one of the four capital projects in this

plan.

Where is the money for the school in Pitt Meadows that’s been long

promised, in elections, by NDP candidates? How about the Mission secondary

schools? Where are those? Long promised. The Olympic Village elementary

school? Those have been campaign promises by this government and their

members. Not mentioned in the budget.

Not one new school mentioned in the budget for Surrey, which was

supposed to have no portables left by 2020, under this government’s watch.

If you go to the project list of projects over $50 million…. Given that a

school in Kamloops was just priced out, for an elementary school, at $63½

million, I would suggest to you that any new school in this province is

going to be $50 million plus.

There is not one new school listed for Surrey. None for Langley. None

for Chilliwack. None for the Tri-Cities areas. In Langford, I think there

are none new, but I think they’re almost pushing $1 billion over the term of

the previous Premier’s reign in Langford, so they did pretty well with

school capital. The rest of the province? Not so much.

Let’s move on to business. Page 35 of the budget, table 1.4, shows the

direct disconnect this government has with the business community. On the

one line, they show that they expect corporate tax revenues to plummet this

year — in half, from this current fiscal to next fiscal.

[3:00 p.m.]

Yet the very next line below it is the employers health tax, which is

paid by employers whether they’re profitable or not, and they want to

collect hundreds of millions more in employers health tax than they had

first anticipated needing to collect, because they stubbornly refuse to

adjust the rate that the tax is charged at or the threshold at which the tax

starts to be collected.

On the one hand, they actually recognize that businesses are no longer

as profitable and are going to have a tough time over the next year, and

literally, in the next line in their budget, they decide to whack them over

the head with a different tax increase. That’s how this NDP views business.

The pockets in the front of their pants are empty, so we’ll reach around and

dig a little bit out of the back pocket.

The quotes by the business community across the board have been

damning of this budget, from the Surrey Board of Trade, from the Greater

Vancouver Board of Trade, from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the B.C.

Business Council’s chief economist. You name it. They’ve all panned this

budget. This budget doesn’t talk about the economy in any positive terms. It

doesn’t talk about any actions being taken to try to improve the economy, to

try to put your shoulder to the wheel and try to make things as good as they

possibly could be, despite what might be happening around the world. No,

no.

Just like we’ve seen with the forestry sector, this budget conveys,

essentially, a shrug by government that business will do what business is

going to do, and we’re just going to keep doing what we do as government.

That’s tax them and not find a way to try to incentivize them to reinvest in

their business to move forward in a way that helps their bottom line at

all.

The carbon tax is another example businesses have a lot of

understandable concern around; so do we. I was saying earlier to some of my

colleagues that it feels like a game of three-card monte, the way they keep

moving around these carbon tax revenues now between CleanBC and other

programs that are or aren’t part of CleanBC, stuff they’ll take credit for

as part of CleanBC or green energy that any government would be funding,

regardless — things like transit.

Over the next seven years, the annual carbon tax increase will raise

the price of a litre of gas by an extra 26 cents a litre. Now, that’s a

massive hit to people on their daily commutes. Over the next seven years,

we’re not going to see enough investment in electric vehicles. That is going

to be the tipping point. We may wish it that way, but that’s not the way

things are trending.

What else does carbon tax impact in your daily lives? We have seen a

lot of cold weather over these last three weeks. Let’s take a look at what

carbon tax over the next seven years does to your natural gas bill. Now,

keep in mind you are currently paying more in carbon tax to heat your home

than the gas you’re using to heat your home. Let that sink in. Your carbon

tax on your natural gas home heating bill is more expensive than the gas

itself currently. That’s at $0.0979 for a cubic metre.

According to

schedule 1 on Bill 10, which is the bill that accompanies

the budget, natural gas will rise to $0.324 per cubic metre. It’s already

more expensive than the gas on your bill at $0.0979. Let’s raise it up to

$0.324, keep the income thresholds the way they are on our carbon action tax

credit that goes back to only low-income people and assume that people that

have no choice but to heat their home with natural gas are somehow going to

be able to shoulder this cost increase.

[3:05 p.m.]

When you look back to gas, it’s gone up 52 cents a litre since the NDP

became government, on average. We should not be so desensitized that we

suddenly think a buck-75 is a bargain at the pump, yet that’s where we seem

to be this days.

With natural resources in rural B.C., it’s important to note, once

again, the NDP are slating a 33 percent drop in revenues over the next two

years. Again, that’s over the next two years. They budgeted for all these

declines a year ago. So when we hear lip service paid to speeding up

permitting to help get projects moving, that’s what we view it as in this

budget: lip service.

Permitting has been a problem since not just a year ago. Permitting

has been a problem under this government since they took office. It was

always a little slow. Now it’s a couple of years for the most basic permits,

across the board.

Good luck if you’re looking for forestry permits. Good luck if you’re

looking for mining permits. But just even a general, front-counter type, “I

need a regular permit,” a range permit, anything — it takes forever these

days.

Now, the timeline the government doesn’t want to talk about is when

they say: “We’re going to hire 160 more people.” When you talk to people in

the field, permitting is a bit of a complicated process for government

officials, and rightfully so. They have to make sure everything is on the up

and up and things are done properly, and they should. It takes a heck of a

lot of time to train people up. You don’t just put an ad out on an online

job search engine, have somebody apply and think that they’re fully up to

speed on permitting without a couple of years of experience under their

belt.

This situation has been building over the last few years and getting

worse and ignored by this government. The result of this budget is not going

to match the words. It simply won’t. Instead of figuring out a way to make

permitting more streamlined while still protecting the things that you need

to protect within that permitting structure, this government’s default

response is always: “Let’s just hire more people. That’ll do the

trick.”

Hire more people that are going to take years to train up. Hopefully,

the ones that are trained up…. Actually, their training times out with the

people that will undoubtedly retire in that same time frame, so it’s going

to be this perpetual loop for a while.

But let’s not find efficiencies in the permitting system. No, no.

Let’s keep the system that we have created over the last six years, which

has jammed permits into purgatory and finger-pointed everyone else for why

things aren’t moving. And not just in rural B.C. Talk to municipalities that

are near a highway corridor when they’re trying to do a subdivision, when

they’re trying to get a rezoning done for a multifamily housing unit and

they’re waiting on Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure sign-off.

You name it. Across the board, it is a drag on our economy.

When things needed to be moving quickly to try to beat the rising

interest rates so projects could be locked in and final decisions could be

made and financing could be in place at lower rates, this government didn’t

respond. The foot-dragging continued on, and we’re seeing projects across

this province shelved to wait for the economic conditions to

change.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is why you heard the government actually being fairly pessimistic

in their view over the next couple of years, but not pessimistic with an

undertone of: “We’re ready to accept the challenge and fight the good fight

and try to right the ship for people.” It was a defeatist: “We’re just going

to throw more money at this stuff, because times are hard.”

Under every category I’ve just talked about, results have gotten worse

under this last six years. Under every one of these categories, the

government’s response in this budget was: “We’ll just throw more money at

the exact same programming, and that’ll work.”

I don’t know anyone that would stand, other than the government MLAs….

It either means they’re totally out of touch with their constituents or just

willing to stick to the speaking points. But other than the government MLAs,

I don’t know anyone that would say there have been improvements in housing

affordability for ownership or rentals over the last five years. I don’t

know anyone that says the health care system five years ago was worse than

it is now.

Health care has never been as bad as it is. Health care has never been

perfect in this province. Absolutely. It has never been as bad as it is now.

Full stop.

Crime has never been as bad as it is — the street disorder, the

vandalism, the random attacks. It’s never been as bad as it is right now.

Other than government MLAs, I don’t hear anyone else saying that things have

gotten better.

Mental health and addictions — the data says it all. Sadly, whenever

this government reaches out to try to get some form of data, if they don’t

like what they’re seeing, they scrub it. They shut down research. They don’t

want reports finished. They only want to see things that fit their

narrative. The simple reality is that we’re losing six-plus people a day,

dying in an opioid crisis that was only first getting started in 2016 or so.

It has exploded fully under this government’s watch.

I’m not saying that the opioid crisis was created by this government,

but it exploded under this government, as it did in many jurisdictions. But

those jurisdictions have adapted. They’ve tried doing things to actually get

better results for people. They haven’t just sat back and presided over it

month over month over month, saying, “It’s complex, and we’re seeing what we

can do,” and blaming others. That’s what this government’s response is.

That’s not saving lives. The numbers back it up. Just like cancer care, it’s

not something that can afford to wait.

When we look at the mental health and addictions plan in this budget,

the lack of detail is astonishing when you consider that they’re trying to

attach $1 billion to it. The fact that the bulk of the $1 billion is in year

3 is another problem. The government likes to talk about everything that’s

in this budget, which is a three-year plan, as if all of it is happening in

this year. It simply isn’t.

It’s actually cruel to offer that type of hope to families — who are

desperate for care for their loved ones, to have access to recovery options

— to make it sound like it’s going to be happening in the next month or two,

when, at best, it’s in year 3 of the plan that construction may or may not

even get started. It’s not right that the government, in this budget, would

remove any mention about future wait times for access to treatment for

recovery.

[3:15 p.m.]

In the years moving forward, they haven’t even decided what an

acceptable wait time would be. Is it 14 days to access treatment? Is it

seven days? Is it 12 hours? Is it 29.3 days, like the budget book references

once and then for future years has been removed and says “to be

determined”?

Again, we don’t know, because this government doesn’t want to be

judged. They don’t want to know whether or not what they are doing or not is

actually having the desired outcome, because no one actually knows what this

government feels the desired outcome is.

When the government stands up and shakes their finger at opposition

and says why don’t we get on board and we don’t agree…. We agree that

housing needs to be fixed, because we’ve watched it erode for the last 5½

years under their watch. We agree crime and disorder need to be fixed. We

agree mental health and addictions needs serious interventions and serious

efforts put into the recovery side of the equation. We agree health care is

a mess and needs proper targeted investments on a wide range of areas, not

the least of which is cancer care.

Where we differ is that this government seems incapable of providing

any actual tangible result that makes any of that better. Given this is the

seventh budget that they have used the words “historic investment” and

“unprecedented,” one would have thought and hoped that they might have

succeeded on one of those fronts over the previous six budgets. Instead, we

get the same rehashed words on the same programs, moving forward.

Housing. In this budget, the government has decided they’re going to

keep the 13 housing taxes they’ve put on housing since they formed

government. They’ve decided that they’re walking away from their ten-year

housing plan on year 6, because it’s failed miserably, but we don’t know

what the new plan is. They decided to walk away from any type of target or

measurable of the 114,000, which was the centerpiece of the 30-point housing

plan, because they’ve only delivered 8 percent of it after six

years.

Their solution is to dump more money into housing without a plan,

without any targets, under a backdrop of a B.C. Housing agency that

previously had a bunch of money dumped into it by this government, which has

resulted in a forensic audit needing to be undertaken that’s not finished

yet. That’s what this government seems to consider a housing success, while,

at the same time, their budget document acknowledges that housing starts are

going to drop over the next few years.

It also acknowledges that their own housing provider, B.C. Housing,

will be hard-pressed to deliver 3,000 units in a year, not even the paltry

3,900 they delivered in a previous year. I say that because if you think of

a ten-year plan that was supposed to deliver 114,000 housing units, that’s

11,000 housing units a year that that plan was supposed to deliver. Now

we’re down to B.C. Housing acknowledging that they’re not going to be able

to make 3,000 in a year. No wonder this government doesn’t want any

measurable targets for the public to judge them on.

Let’s consider this. The justification this government is using for

rampant cost overruns on the Colwood collections building, where it’s now

almost $100 million over budget, is because they redesigned it with green

energy in mind, which is not a bad ideal to do, but that’s what resulted in

the massive price spike, according to the government. Now, it’s always a

slightly different story, especially when it comes to things around the

museum.

[3:20 p.m.]

What does that mean to housing, then? In one building, it almost

doubles the price in a more temperate area of the province, compared to

other parts of the province, in a building that’s already designed heavily

around whole HVAC and dehumidification and everything else because it’s

supposed to be a repository to safely store artifacts. You don’t just put a

bathroom fan in one of those. So despite the initial design, which one would

have thought would have had a pretty energy-efficient building, it’s going

to take an extra $100 million to have Lord knows what level.

How does that tie into housing? Well, here’s what the Canadian Home

Builders Association had to say about this budget. Let’s keep in mind that

this is a budget that’s supposed to be delivering affordable homes.

“Unfortunately, funding for CleanBC enhancements has been drastically

reduced from $24 million to $11 million for the ’23-24 period. While this

investment potentially allows the CleanBC Better Homes program to continue,

it is inadequate to enable low-carbon market transformation and new

residential construction.”

Let’s just think about the government priority here. When they need to

add energy efficiencies to their pet project in Colwood, they have no

problem finding an extra $100 million of taxpayers’ money to do that. The

building industry that’s supposed to be building our affordable housing for

people, which was relying on a grant through CleanBC to make

energy-efficient homes for British Columbians at, hopefully, an affordable

price, just had their grant reduced from $24 million to $11

million.

Talk about backwards priorities of a government, making sure they

feather their own nest for their own pet projects and not looking out to the

broader community in terms of things that people are trying to do to

accomplish the issues that they would like to see addressed and in terms of

their own pride in what they’re building. It’s simply not acceptable when

you look at where they have pulled money around here and there on the

justification that somehow this is a visionary budget.

It simply is not. The reviews are in; they’re horrible. Again, I don’t

know anyone that feels things have gotten better in this province over the

last five, six years.

It’s actually quite hard to put into words, despite how long I’ve

already spoken for, just how lacklustre this budget is. I said in one

interview…. It’s almost like we’re all in an episode of Oprah, but instead

of everyone getting a car, we all get a toaster. Everyone is wondering:

“What are we supposed to do with this?” “You get a toaster, you get a

toaster, and you get a toaster.” “But I didn’t want a toaster.” “It doesn’t

matter. Take it. We’re getting results.”

There’s no vision. For a budget that has more revenue coming into it

than we’ve ever seen in this province…. The fact that it has been mismanaged

this badly in this document, on day 101 of the Premier’s new days of action,

is shocking.

Now, I touched on this yesterday briefly, and I’ll touch on it again

just before I close off my comments. Let’s look at the promises that were

made in those 100 days. There was no actual action taken in the 100 days.

There were just promises made, promise after promise after promise — 100

days of promises, not 100 days of action.

So 230 or 240, whatever it was, police officers are going to be added

to the provincial police ranks in the RCMP. Well, how genuine of a promise

is that, when the Solicitor General, rightfully so, stands up in this House,

over the last two weeks, in question period, and rightfully acknowledges

that it’s very hard to get new officers out of Depot in Regina?

[3:25 p.m.]

Between retirements and needs in other communities and other divisions

around the country, it’s very tough to get new officers. How are we

magically going to find 250 new officers, like are in this budget, in the

next short term? Where do they magically appear from?

I can tell you, as the former mayor of Kamloops…. Our detachment

commander, our superintendent, came forward while I was still there and

said: “We need two officers a year for the next five years.” I said: “No.

Ask for ten this year. It’s going to take us six years to get you ten.” And

it did. We had to start budgeting for and asking for just to get one or two

officers extra a year into our detachment. That was for ten officers. This

is for 250.

Now, I don’t know. I do know there is one large pocket of RCMP

officers, which is currently stationed in the province, that, I guess,

technically, if the RCMP no longer needed them for municipal duties, would

be freed up. If the province is able to negotiate with the RCMP to keep them

in British Columbia, the Solicitor General would have a pool of officers to

work on.

That would require the Solicitor General to actually tell the people

of Surrey that the government is not approving the move back to the RCMP.

That is the only pocket of RCMP officers of any size and of any consequence

in this whole country that the Solicitor General and the Premier can tap

into to meet their promise of 250 officers in this budget. If they’re doing

that, that’s fine.

Just tell us that’s what you’re doing. Tell the people of Surrey

that’s what you’re doing. Enough with the game-playing. If that’s not what

you’re doing, the 250 officers is a false promise. It simply won’t

happen.

Communities and policing areas that desperately need those resources

need to know the truth, whether they’re going to see any of those 250

officers or not. I don’t think it’s asking too much of a government to

provide a very clear explanation on the timeline and where exactly these 250

officers are coming from.

That would require bravery from this Premier. We haven’t seen it. We

haven’t seen it in this budget. We certainly haven’t seen bold ideas from

this Premier in this budget.

We’ve seen rehashed ideas. We’ve seen the same programs getting a few

extra dollars put on to them to be called historic, on budgets, seven times

in a row now, that are continually delivering worse and worse results,

ever-worsening oversight and understanding of what’s actually going on with

these programs that have been announced by government, worse and worse

tracking of deliverables, a firm adherence by this government to not want to

be held accountable by having any tangible, real measurement of any

program.

Again, it’s not just about dollars spent. The amount of dollars being

spent on a program does not automatically equate to a success.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

You need to know several things about a program. How much is being

spent? What’s the desired outcome? What’s the desired timeline? What’s the

check-in point so that you can review it and say: “Is it working, or isn’t

it working”? If it’s not working, what needs to be adjusted? Does it need to

be completely scrapped and rebuilt, or does it just truly need a few more

dollars to make it work better? When you have none of those systems in

place, you’re just dumping money into a pit and hoping for a better

result.

Government ministers of the Crown are supposed to lead. They’re

supposed to drive the change. They’re supposed to get their colleagues at

Treasury Board and cabinet to agree on the program they want to implement as

a minister, and then they’re supposed to guide it and drive that program to

be successful.

[3:30 p.m.]

What it feels like with this government is that the ministers seem to

think you get support for the funding, you get support for the name of the

program, you announce it, and your work’s done. It’s just simply not good

enough.

There’s a finite number of tax dollars available for any government to

work with. We’re hitting the breaking point. By the government’s own words

in the throne speech and in this budget, we’re hitting the breaking point.

There isn’t the luxury of just flinging money around and hoping that you

might get a better result. People’s lives literally are depending on

it.

This government is more content to try to point a finger back to some

event that happened in 2002 than deal with the fact that they’ve been in

government since 2017. I have news for the government. Someone struggling

with cancer today really could care less what happened in 2002 in the health

system. You know what they want in the here and now? They want access to an

oncologist. They want access to treatment.

We’ve heard cases where people are waiting four weeks to get a feeding

tube so they can continue their cancer treatment. Do you think any of those

people that we heard about today in question period really care what

happened in 2002 in this chamber? I’ll guarantee you they don’t. Their

families certainly don’t. Someone struggling with addictions that wasn’t

even born then, whose family is desperate for them to get treatment now,

actually needs to see government action on that. They need to see government

result on that. They need to see it delivered — not talked about, not

scoffed at by this government but actually delivered.

That would require this government to actually say that they truly

value recovery and treatment at the same level as other parts of what’s

going on in the mental health and addictions sphere. Their words say they

do; their actions say they don’t. It’s the actions that actually matter.

It’s the actions that will actually save lives. It’s the lack of actions

that will cost lives. It’s simply not good enough.

This government is on their second Premier. They’re on their third

Finance Minister. They’re careening towards the third election. At what

point do they look in the mirror and say: “A lot of this mess is our own.” I

can tell the members, once you step out of these chambers and join the real

world outside of these walls, that’s what the public is wondering. They’re

wondering how a government can be bragging about $37 billion, basically all

on projects they’ve already announced, when their MLA they voted for

promised them a school over the last six years that still isn’t in a capital

plan.

Our cancer centres aren’t built. Nanaimo was promised a cancer centre

at the same time as Kamloops. It’s in the same limbo as Kamloops. Now,

certainly the member for Kamloops–South Thompson and myself and Shuswap and

Fraser-Nicola and Cariboo-Chilcotin are raising the alarm bells, because

that cancer centre would serve all of our constituents. Frankly, it’s been a

little disappointing hearing the silence coming out of Nanaimo, other than

the mayor. I’m sure members of the government remember who the mayor of

Nanaimo is. They worked with him in this chamber enough.

Some of these projects are literally rounding errors in the overall

capital spend of this province over the next few years — rounding errors

that would actually save lives.

I do hope the government members, as they get up to address this

budget, actually reflect on that — reflect on the shortcomings that, over

the last six years, have been created and the lack of results that we’re

seeing.

[3:35 p.m.]

I get that it’s not easy to hear. I get that it can be: “Oh, well,

there’s that guy from Kamloops–North Thompson blustering on again like he

always does in this place.” Sometimes the truth hurts.

It’s not my words that are providing the evidence. It’s the emails

that flood all of our in-boxes about the lack of access to health care, the

lack of access to cancer care, the repeated broken windows, the loved one

that got randomly attacked on a street, the catch-and-release system, the

fact that their child can’t afford to live where they found a

job.

The amount of young people that we get emails from in my office….

Their child has found a job and something they want to do. Especially if

they’re from a smaller town, they need to move to a Kamloops or somewhere

else because that’s where the job is. They can’t find housing that they can

afford, even though they’re gainfully employed as welders and things like

that. It is shocking.

Guess what. Their average income will be high enough that they won’t

qualify for the renters rebate — you know, that renters rebate that was

promised six years ago. It actually can’t be actioned for another full year,

because you can’t action it until you file your income taxes this time next

year. That renters rebate. That renters rebate that the government tries to

say will have 80 percent of renters in the province qualifying.

Is the government honestly trying to tell us that they think that 80

percent of the residents of British Columbia have household incomes of

$80,000 or less, who are renters, when the average income needed to rent in

Vancouver alone is $100,000 a year for a one-bedroom apartment, $150,000 for

a two-bedroom apartment?

Vancouver rents aren’t that dissimilar to the rest of the province. I

hate to break it to people. Kelowna is just every bit as expensive.

Victoria. Kamloops is right up there now. My son’s apartment in Kamloops is

$1,600 a month for a one bedroom. He and his wife won’t qualify for the

renters rebate. Their household income will make it that way.

We don’t know, in the renters rebate, what they actually define as

household income. If you have a roommate, whether you’re married or not,

common law or not, is that a household?

Again, a lot of fanfare. The fact is that they had six years to think

this up and design it. And this is the best that we can have?

It’s historic, all right. It’s historic for how long a simple concept

like this takes this government to try to roll out. It will still be fraught

with bureaucracy and misunderstanding of who qualifies or not.

That’s really the theme of this budget. An underwhelming and

underperforming budget to match an underwhelming and underperforming

government over the last six years. It has done nothing, has nothing in it

to meaningfully change the trajectory we are on, on crime, on housing, on

health care, on cancer, on housing, none of it.

While the government may want to pat themselves on the back, I will

put everyone’s attention back to how I started my comments today. I would be

very cautious.

When you start looking at the forward projections that this government

is using now to exceed their own Economic Forecast Council’s guidance…. It

got this government in trouble once before, which means it got all of the

province of British Columbia in big trouble previously. We’re careening down

that path again. It masks underlying problems this government doesn’t want

to admit are there. Ironically, they’re trying to mask it on the backs of

LNG.

[3:40 p.m.]

I do hope the government members read this budget with a bit of a

cynical eye — many of them know how to read it as if they were in

opposition; they were in opposition for a while, just as we are now — and

ask themselves what their constituents truly would think about this, and ask

themselves: “What’s actually going on in my email in-box from my

constituents, in their lives?”

“Are they truly all emailing me, saying what a wonderful job we’re

doing as a government? Or are they emailing me, desperately trying to get a

cancer drug covered? Are they emailing me, desperate to find an oncologist?

Are they emailing me saying: ‘I don’t have a family doctor, and the walk-in

clinics either aren’t open or the lineups are too long’?

“Are they emailing me asking me what I’m going to do, as an MLA, about

all the broken windows and random assaults that are happening on our streets

and all the tent cities? Or are they strictly just emailing opposition

members that, and do the government MLAs just get nothing but praise in

their email in-box?” Just ask yourselves that.

I’m willing to bet, given the volume of emails I’m cc’d on and that go

to government members, that it’s not all praise. Maybe, for a change, you

could actually recognize that those are real people, with real concerns, in

your constituencies. This budget does nothing to help them and their

concerns that they’ve been raising over the last six years that this

government has been in office.

With that, I will wrap my comments up. Thank you for this

time.

S. Furstenau: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the budget today.

I studied history, so I like looking back into historical records,

into archives. One of the things that I was doing just now, while listening

to the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson, was looking at budget

responses in the 2014, 2015, 2016 era, when the House was in the other

way.

What is fascinating, Madam Speaker, and I expect other people that

have been here a long time might also have the same sentiment, is that it

seems like a pretty consistently scripted play that we’re all in.

The Finance Minister for government stands up on budget day and

delivers a budget. There are all sorts of great communications, and it’s a

huge celebration: “Look at all the great things we’re doing, and this is a

wonderful day for British Columbia.”

Then the opposition critic stands up and says: “This is terrible. Oh,

my. I couldn’t think of a worse budget. This doesn’t meet any of the

expectations that we want to see for British Columbians. This is just a

complete and terrible, terrible day.”

There is, however, now a Third Party, and we’re somewhat…. As you can

see, Madam Speaker, I don’t have a written speech. We’re a little bit

interested in not partaking in the same play that has been playing. As much

as I love theatre, we think that we could have a different approach to

this.

I would say that for British Columbians, the history repeating itself

over and over again, year after year, can start to feel a little bit

disconnecting, for the people out there that we serve. Every budget that’s

presented in this place has some really great aspects to it, does some

things that help people, that they need help with. No budget ever presented

in this place has solved every­thing; that’s for sure.

[3:45 p.m.]

Year over year, we get into this same scripted play that we’re in

here. I think we could change the script. I really do. I think we could do

something different, because what’s fascinating is that this script and the

outcomes that we get are pretty consistent.

I talk a lot about what we measure, and I think that I want to go into

a little bit of that. When we look at the budget…. I’ve got this year’s

budget, and I’ve got last year’s budget, and the things we measure…. We

measure rev­enues, we measure expenses, and we measure GDP. Then there

are other things we measure — employment, which is good. We measure all of

the ways that we’re spending capital. We look at forecasts.

But we keep measuring the same things, and we keep pouring more and

more money — $80 billion. That’s a lot of money, $80 billion. Yet year over

year, if you look at all the responses to budgets, we keep coming back with

much the same concerns or deepening problems with what conditions people are

facing.

We’ve heard a lot from the opposition critic about housing, about cost

of living, about the kinds of things that people are experiencing — lack of

access to health care. We know very well all of these problems that we’re

all facing. I want to make the case that if we started measuring

differently, we could actually start getting different outcomes, not just

from our budgets but from our governance and even from what happens in

here.

There was work under the confidence and supply agreement, when we had

a minority government, to actually start to incorporate GPIs, genuine

progress indicators, into the budgeting. Unfortunately, since we have hit

the majority government, I don’t see much indication of that work carrying

on, so we’re just right back to where we used to be, GDP.

There are social determinants of health that we could be looking at.

Are our budgets delivering improvements for the things that we know

determine people’s health and well-being? Housing, education, healthy food,

access to health care, community belonging, all these things. That’s not in

here.

The Canadian government even has a quality-of-life index. They are

actually doing some of this measuring of quality of life. Are we improving

that? That’s the goal.

I want to point to a government that I’ve been referencing a lot, and

that’s New Zealand. New Zealand has been doing well-being budgets now, and

they just came out with their first well-being report for 2022. A couple of

things about this report are really fascinating.

When you start to read it, you’re not getting what you typically get

from a government, which is: “Everything is awesome.” That’s typically the

kind of communications we get from governments. “We’re doing a great job.

Every­thing’s wonderful. Look at all these investments we’ve made.

Everything is great.” Then we have the same script on the other

side.

In this well-being report that just came out from New Zealand, they

look at a whole swath of ways to measure whether the budget is delivering

well-being. I’m going to put this list on the record, because I think it’s

very interesting.

They talk about individual and collective well-being, because as we

know, our individual well-being is very much connected to our collective

well-being. We are not all separate. I’ve been watching these murmurations

in the evening, outside of my hotel windows. The starlings all gather, and

they do these amazing murmurations. I look at those starlings, and I think:

“They know something we don’t know.” Somehow, they can fly in all these

different directions and not bump into each other, and they make this

incredible kind of art. It’s like they’re playing, and they’re making art

right in the sky, collective well-being.

The kinds of things that New Zealand looks at to try to determine

well-being…. They look at: do you feel like you have a sense of identity?

Can you express your identity? What about artistic expression?

Oh, wow. What if we thought about measuring: are people able to have

artistic expression? What do we value from the past? What do we look at? We

look at beautiful architecture, beautiful art. We look at literature. We

look at poetry. This is the greatest expression of being human. So wouldn’t

it be neat if, as a government, we said: “Let’s value artistic expression.

Let’s value whether or not our citizens are able to express themselves

artistically.”

[3:50 p.m.]

Connection to ancestral roots for Māori people, the number of

languages that you speak. The sense of belonging that you have. Whether you

feel like you have a say in government decisions, which is way more than

just: did you vote? Do you feel like you are participating in your

government’s decisions?

They measure things like how many children are living in poverty,

household income, meeting basic needs, food security, household worth,

education, free time, play, recreation, sport, work-life balance, family

violence, safety.

They measure crime. They measure road accidents; work-related

injuries; life satisfaction; employment; hourly wages; unemployment; unpaid

work; volunteering; access to parks and green space; drinking water quality;

how many droughts are happening in any region; the impacts from pollution;

the natural environment health; connection to family, friends, community;

loneliness; health; mental health; life expectancy; housing; primary health

care. They’re measuring all of those things in New Zealand as a way to

understand how effective government spending is at creating collective

well-being and individual well-being.

Now imagine if our budgets every year came out with, also, a report on

the previous year’s budget, and we looked at these factors for well-being,

and we asked ourselves every year at budget time: did last year’s budget

improve well-being for people?

This is the thing about this report from New Zealand. In their

measures, they look at: where is well-being going up? Success. Where is

well-being staying the same? Hmm, work to do. Where is well-being going

down? That’s where we invest.

One of the measures that they found was that child poverty wasn’t

improving. In fact, it was getting worse. So the budget that comes out

invests heavily to decrease child poverty, because isn’t that the measure? I

mean, wouldn’t that be? Wouldn’t we all agree that the measure of our

success as a society is our children and that having children live in

poverty is a failure? So let’s invest in making sure that fewer children,

ideally no children, are growing up in poverty.

But until we actually decide to make that a measurement of the work we

do in here, we’re going to continue going from year to year, budget to

budget. We’re going to have all these announcements, and we’re going to go

through the same play in here — “this is wonderful; this is terrible.” We’re

never really going to know, quantitatively and qualitatively, what we are

achieving.

I want to look at last year’s budget. Some of the high-level…. The

news release: “Budget 2022 Moves Us Forward to Build a Stronger B.C.” This

was a year ago. It feels like a long time ago. This was a year

ago.

Here are some of the things, some of these big an­nouncements in

last year’s budget. Fifteen First Nations primary care centres. Wow. That

would be awesome. I don’t know if we achieved that. I’d love to know if we

achieved that.

Taking a proactive approach to respond to and prevent homelessness

through new complex care housing. Okay. Great. How many of those did we get

built? That would be really good to know.

Supporting survivors of sexual assault by providing stable funding to

approximately 50 community-based sexual assault response organizations. I

would love to find out how many of those organizations got funded. What did

that funding do? How many more people got support that needed it when they

showed up?

So 280 remote, rural and Indigenous communities to get high-speed

Internet. Okay. How are we doing on that? Accelerating investments to build

more affordable and mixed-income housing projects faster. Good. Did we

succeed?

That’s just a couple of things from last year’s budget. I think it’s

really…. I’m not doing this to be like: “Oh, I gotcha.” I’m doing this to be

like: we could do better in here.

[3:55 p.m.]

We could do better for the public by showing our work. We could do

better by not just always starting from scratch, as though this budget comes

out of nowhere and it’s all the shiny things this year, and we’re not going

to talk about last year or the year before that.

This is how we can change how we do things in here. And if we change

how we do things in here, we change how we serve British Columbians. But

this thing, oh boy, it’s been going on for a long time, and the speeches are

the same. It’s amazing. Just swap sides; same speeches. It’d save on a lot

of staffing costs. Just go through Hansard . It’s all

there.

For me, I sat down after I became leader of a provincial party, the

Third Party — I never saw that one coming in my life, but here I am — and I

thought: “Okay, what do I think about what we could be in British Columbia?”

This is a joke with all my staff. I’m always making charts. I put things on

big charts because that’s how I…. I’m sort of a visual learner, and I like

to represent all the things going on in here on a big chart so I can see it

and other people can see it.

I have this chart that I made. It has four pillars. At the top is:

people’s needs are met, and they have the conditions to thrive. That’s one.

That’s what I think we could be as a province.

Two, our natural systems are healthy, and they’re able to keep us

healthy — clean water, clean air, soil, ecosystems, biodiversity, all the

things that we need. Because we’re not separate from that. We’re not

separate from nature. If nature is unhealthy, we are unhealthy. That’s

two.

Three, our communities, where we live, are thriving. They’re diverse,

they’re connected, they’re a place of safety, and we feel happy about living

there. That gives us that collective well-being for our individual

well-being.

Then four…. I don’t think we talk about this a lot typically, but for

me, the fourth pillar is really important: we trust our institutions; we

trust our government.

So you put those four things together. This has been driving my work

for the last two years — our whole team. This chart is up there. It’s

pretty. I made drawings around it, made it look nice.

The idea that we have is: are the things that we’re putting forward,

the ideas that we’re putting forward…? We’ve done a lot of this in the last

month. All these ideas — lower tuition, increase public transit in this

province, bring people with disabilities out of poverty, invest in

psychologists as part of our health care system, put community health

centres in every community in B.C.…. You move into a community, and just

like with a school, that you know where your kids are going to school, you

know where your community health centre is. You have a team of primary care

providers.

With all these things, we ask ourselves: does it meet one or two or

three or maybe even all four of these outcomes? And it does. They improve

that.

It’s really important, I think, that we ask ourselves, as

representatives of our communities, as members of this House: what does the

horizon look like that we’d like to…? What’s the shape of that future that

we want to be a part of building and making? And then: does this decision,

does this investment get us closer to that?

And how do we measure that? We measure that by looking at well-being

writ large. We can do it. We can actually measure these things. It’s not out

of the realm of possibility.

But if we only measure GDP…. We keep hearing: “GDP is strong. We’ve

got GDP growth. We’ve got a strong economy.” Over and over and over again:

“strong economy.” We have a million people without a family doctor. We have

more and more people who can’t afford housing. We have more and more people

for whom their kids are going into classrooms that are too crowded,

under-resourced, don’t have access to mental health care. That doesn’t feel

like a strong economy to me. It feels like we’re measuring one

thing.

As has been said about GDP for so long, it measures all the things

except what matters. It doesn’t measure any of those things that are laid

out in New Zealand’s well-being report, none of them. None of them are

measured by GDP.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’re not measuring what it actually is to be human in this society,

but we measure this external — how much money, how many goods and services

are moving around — as though that is the thing that we’re trying to

achieve, and that only. It doesn’t make sense to me.

I think these moments, this time we’re in…. I think there’s pretty

general agreement that this is a crisis time we’re in. We’re facing….

There’s a term, polycrisis. Climate change is a crisis. It has certainly

impacted communities where you live, where you represent. We are seeing, in

B.C., some of the most devastating impacts of climate- and weather-related

events. It’s a crisis. It’s an existential crisis for humans, but we have

other crises.

We have had an ongoing pandemic that continues to wreak havoc to

hospitalized people. We continue to see people die. It has absolutely

crushed our health care system, which was already challenged.

Growing inequality is a problem. I taught history. If you look at the

conditions that lead to authoritarian or totalitarian governments, the one

most consistent condition is too much of a gap between rich and poor. We

have a billionaire problem: too many of them. Too many billions in too few

hands — that is a problem.

When we’re in a time like this, we can kind of keep doing the same

thing and wish that it would turn out differently, which is sort of what

we’re doing here: “Just a little; we’re going to just tinker here.” But

really, we’re going to act as though we’re not in these overlapping

crises.

I pointed out in question period today that climate is almost

nonexistent in this budget; $17 billion in damages from an atmospheric river

in 2021, and a year and a half later, we’re like: “Climate? Meh. Put that in

contingency.” We have to get in front of this. It’s not going to be like:

“Yeah, you didn’t budget for it, so we’ll take a reprieve on climate impacts

for a year or two.” That’s not how it’s going to work.

We can recognize, in a moment like this, that if we continue to do the

same things, if we continue to operate the same way, we’re going to get more

and more of the same outcomes. Or we can say: “Wow. In a moment like this,

in a time of crisis, this is a time when we can be creative.”

This is when we can think of new ways of doing things, when we can

recognize that the partisanship, which has become so deeply embedded in our

political and governing systems, is not really serving people very well. It

starts to feel like it’s just a game of point-scoring in here.

People need us to work together; people need us to listen to each

other. We have all these perspectives in here, 87 different communities. We

bring the perspectives of the people that voted for us in all of those

communities and the people who didn’t vote for us. We hear from them

all.

Imagine if we were willing to really listen, to really think. Wow.

Good ideas don’t only come to you when you’re on one side of the House. We

all have good ideas. We all have incredible people in our community. We’re

all hearing about incredible solutions all the time, in the meetings that we

have, in the correspondence we get and the phone calls and

everything.

There are so many solutions, but we’re kind of trapped in this: “No.

You know, you only get to be on the solution-making side of the House if

you’re over there. If you’re over here, you’re in the criticizing side of

the House.” Everybody just plays their role and carries on, and on we

go.

What are some of the really neat things that are happening? Well, I

think democracy, more democracy, is the answer always, messy and complicated

as it can be. But there are countries around the world that are not only

looking at different ways of budgeting and measuring their government work,

like well-being — New Zealand, Iceland, Scotland, France; but there are

countries, at the same time, that say: “We’ve got to strengthen democracy

right now.”

[4:05 p.m.]

This is a fragile thing. This is not the standard operating principle

of governments through history. It’s new, relatively speaking, and it’s

fragile. We’re seeing all sorts of threats to democracy all over the place —

misinformation, disinformation. We’re seeing a lack of interest in people

even showing up to vote, much less wanting to run for office. We’re seeing a

trust.

So that fourth pillar in my chart is trust our institutions. Trust our

government. Trust our democracy. But to do that, we have to invest. We have

to make it stronger.

In Belgium, they have brought a permanent citizens’ assembly into

their parliament in East Belgium — 50 randomly selected people, kind of like

jury duty. Even just having them in the room with the elected legislators

has reduced partisanship. It has improved cross-party work. It has brought

issues to the table that would not have been brought to the table. The

public is much more courageous and bold than we are, typically

speaking.

Something happens in this place. People get nervous. People get

anxious, going for the wrong thing, I think, which is to hold onto power. As

soon as that becomes the orientation, oh, I think we get in

trouble.

France just released a report on its French citizens’ assembly on

climate as part of its deliberative democracy efforts. This was way beyond

what any political leader