Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 15, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 127

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Catch and release

L. Doerkson

G. Begg

COP26

B. Anderson

P. Milobar

Support for B.C. businesses

D. Davies

B. Bailey

Understanding decriminalization and harm reduction

H. Yao

T. Halford

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 19 — Role of parents in care of children

K. Kirkpatrick

K. Paddon

J. Tegart

R. Leonard

T. Shypitka

A. Mercier

D. Ashton

J. Rice

M. Bernier

J. Brar

T. Halford

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2021

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Russell.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CATCH AND RELEASE

L. Doerkson: Today I rise to speak on an issue of growing concern both in my

community and throughout British Columbia. It is one that needs to be

addressed on a wider scale to keep people safe and ensure that our

cities and towns are places where businesses can thrive and families can

live without fear, because right now that is not the reality for far too

many in our province.

[10:05 a.m.]

I have risen in this House in the past to speak on this issue of

prolific offenders, and since then, in every corner of the province, the

problem has worsened. Our province’s current catch-and-release style of

approach is clearly not working, and it will take every level of

government working together to bring about real change.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Prolific offenders are generally described as individuals with a

high criminal offence rate who are considered to be at high risk of

reoffending following their release from custody. There is growing

consensus that a disproportionate amount of crime, particularly property

crime, is committed by a minority of offenders — individuals who fall

into the category of prolific offender.

We can see this throughout the province: in rural B.C., downtown

Vancouver, on Vancouver Island and in Prince George. There is nowhere in

this province, it seems, that is untouched by this issue.

Just this week an individual was arrested in downtown Vancouver

for attempting to steal $730 worth of merchandise from a cosmetics

store. This came only two days after the person was released from

custody for allegedly stealing 47 pairs of yoga pants from a downtown

store. Police reported that this man had 103 prior criminal convictions,

38 of those for theft.

In Prince George, this week two prolific offenders were arrested

and discovered to be in possession of firearms in addition to other

illicit items.

In September, a man on Vancouver Island was sentenced to 44 months

in prison for more than 60 charges, mostly relating to property crimes,

including break-and-enters in multiple communities around the

Island.

In my own community, last winter the Williams Lake RCMP actually

took the unusual step of issuing a news release about one individual who

was arrested after failing to appear in court on seven outstanding

warrants. How­ever, after a bail hearing that included opposition

by a Crown counsel to release the offender, this individual was released

again, despite seven warrants and over 20 criminal charges.

This is a significant problem. It is clear it is not simply a

matter of individual failure or responsibility but one of systematic

failure. Our system is not built in such a way as to truly address these

situations like this. We are seeing the widespread impacts of these

structural issues.

Communities are feeling increasingly concerned and fearful.

Businesses are not just feeling the economic impact but the social

impacts as well. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce highlighted in a 2019

report: “The economic development of any community relies upon its

reputation as a safe, viable region in which to locate and do business

with supporting infrastructure, community assets and, most importantly,

customers willing to walk in the door. However, if customers feel

unsafe, they won’t come. If the reputation of a region is suspect,

businesses won’t come.”

Unfortunately, this is becoming the reality in too many places

around B.C. We cannot continue to act as if the current approach is

working. We cannot do the same thing over and over and expect that the

result will be a different result after the second time, the tenth time

or the 100th time.

We need to see action on this from every level of government, but

it can start right here — right here in this House and right here in

this chamber. The Minister of Public Safety has himself noted to me that

under the Police Act, it is his responsibility to ensure that an

effective and adequate level of policing and law enforcement is

maintained. Right now I feel many of those police forces are stretched

thin.

The minister has also noted that he is responsible for setting the

goals, objectives and priorities for law enforcement throughout the

province. I hope that he recognizes that solving this crisis needs to be

a priority.

[10:10 a.m.]

At the same time, we also know that this is not something that can

be solved by policing alone. We need to take a closer look and examine

the other gaps in our system that are contributing to this issue, Mr.

Speaker. This will mean making better-targeted investments in mental

health and addiction supports, making sure that people have the help

they need to get well. We also need to work to ensure that when people

are released from custody, they are set on a path of success rather than

left on our streets with no support and nowhere to run.

There is so much that we can do. In my communities in the Cariboo,

here on Vancouver Island and in every corner of this province, right

now, we are failing our communities, we are failing our businesses, and

we are failing individuals who need far better supports.

I hope that we can work together to address this issue and create

safer, better-supported communities through­out this province. I

very much look forward to hearing from the member opposite about how the

government will make progress on this goal.

G. Begg: Thank you to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for his thoughts on

this important issue.

This government believes that residents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin

area and, indeed, in every area of our province, must be protected from

dangerous repeat offenders — what the member opposite refers to as

prolific offenders.

However, I would caution proceeding down the sim­plistic

road that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin proposes. Quite simply, the

approach by this member is simplistic and out of touch with the large

body of evidence suggesting that focusing on the underlying causes of

crime as opposed to over-incarceration is a more effective deterrent

against crime and a much better use of public funds.

This government acknowledges that the residents of the member’s

and other ridings have observed increased vio­lence and other

criminal events not usually seen in some areas of the province. But

these are not recent nor new occurrences. They are, I submit, the result

of decades of government policies that have neglected the social safety

net for vulnerable British Columbians and made these communities more

vulnerable to the problems that accompany drug and other

addictions.

This government recognizes that while there are individuals for

whom detention is warranted, there are a large number of persons who

find themselves entangled in the criminal justice system for reasons

related to mental health, addictions, homelessness, job training, lack

of access to education and systemic overrepresentation in the criminal

justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that rather than focusing energy on the

incarceration of individuals, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin abandon

the failed policies of the past and acknowledge what many justice

partners in North America are discovering: a path towards enlightenment

and healing is preferable to perpetuating the social harms that have

befallen so many in our communities.

This government, I submit, is simply not interested in throwing

simplistic solutions at complex problems. This government welcomes a

dialogue with the communities of the Cariboo-Chilcotin and, indeed, all

across the province on what community resources are needed to assist the

fine residents of his and every other community. What is needed in

moments such as these is public education and eradication into the

underlying problems that can impact our lives and the lives of our

neighbours, not by instilling fear and uncertainty. I have every

confidence that the good people of Cariboo-Chilcotin are wise enough to

know the difference.

Jurisdictions across North America, Europe and Australia are

recognizing that incarceration of accused persons as a tool of first

resort is a proven failure. While I agree that individuals who pose a

threat to public safety should be detained or released under strict

conditions, we as a society have to think hard about whether we wish to

continue to spend public funds on a system that does not lift people up

but, rather, I submit, keeps them down.

[10:15 a.m.]

The evolution of the criminal law in Canada through federal

legislation and recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada reflect

a recognition of the need to exercise restraint. It must be noted that

the province does not enact criminal laws and, indeed, is bound to abide

by federal criminal legislation.

While acknowledging public safety must be upheld, that has been

tempered by an approach that reflects a principle of restraint so as to

avoid the over-incarceration of individuals, particularly of those from

disadvantaged communities, and avoiding prosecution of minor

administrative breaches where there are more alternatives to

prosecution.

I am proud of this government and that it has supported

progressive initiatives in the administration of justice. And it should

be noted that tremendous gains have been made in the management of bail

over the last three years. Access to justice for individuals across

British Columbia has been increased by expanding bail services over

weekends and statutory holidays.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, weekday bail in the

Provincial Court has been running virtually, enabling persons from more

remote communities without courthouses to access the services of Crown

counsel and legal aid duty counsel.

“Catch and release” may be a phrase that the Cariboo-Chilcotin

member thinks is an appropriate description of his view of the criminal

justice system, but it is important that the rule of law be paramount

for all British Columbians.

L. Doerkson: I’m not sure that the member opposite heard the words that I spoke

of and some of the complexities. He referred to the problem as

simplistic and continually focused on what people of Cariboo-Chilcotin

were thinking. I’m speaking for a lot of people in British Columbia, and

I’d like to just read one of the paragraphs that I read:

“This will mean making better-targeted investments in mental

health and addiction supports, making sure that they have the help they

need to get well. We also need to work to ensure that when people are

released from custody, they are set on a path for success rather than

left on our streets with no support and nowhere to run.”

I don’t think those are simple challenges. I do thank the member

opposite for his thoughts on the issue, and I appreciate the perspective

that he has offered. These improvements are desperately needed. Members

of my community are tired. They are tired of living in fear. They are

tired of damage to their property, to businesses, and the threat of

break-ins to homes and vehicles, and I know the same is being felt in

Vancouver, in Victoria, in Prince George and so many other

places.

This is such a central area of concern that the Union of B.C.

Municipalities recently passed a resolution on the topic. The resolution

called on the UBCM to petition the provincial and federal governments to

enact criminal jus­tice system changes for stricter penalties to

ensure ade­quate incarceration of prolific criminals, including

consistent use of electronic monitoring when released on

conditions.

It is obvious that this is an issue felt by very many

municipalities and that the resolution is a positive step. But we also

know that the measures outlined in the resolution need to come with

other systemic changes, with better investments in mental health, social

supports, to make sure that people do not commit further crimes, not

just because they can’t as a result of enhanced policing and

surveillance but because they don’t want to. They don’t feel they need

to.

This is a topic of great personal importance to me and one that I

hope becomes a greater priority for this government. Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this very critical issue

and a very complex issue.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

It should be noted that the order of today’s statements has been

changed at the agreement of the party Whips and the party House Leaders,

just in case anyone wondered.

Recognizing the member for Nelson-Creston.

[10:20 a.m.]

COP26

B. Anderson: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The heat was oppressive, but the smoke was worse. As I drove my

Subaru down the summit of the pass, a sense of panic welled up inside

me. We had experienced smoky summers before, but I had never seen

anything this bad. It was impacting people’s physical and mental health,

including my own.

A Nelson-based doctor has captured the world’s attention by likely

being the first physician to diagnose a patient with climate change. Dr.

Kyle Merritt gave the controversial diagnosis over the summer, saying

that the symptoms of a patient in her 70s who he was seeing were all

tied back to one thing. Those effects included heat stroke, dehydration

and breathing issues. As he treated the patient, he started thinking

about the underlying issues. He ultimately diagnosed her with climate

change.

The heat dome also impacted crop production. A few weeks later we

would learn that 80 percent of the Lapins cherries in the Creston Valley

were lost. This summer, thou­sands of residents on the east shore,

up the valley and across the province were on evacuation alert or order

due to forest fires. We lost most of the buildings in the community of

Lytton.

Residents in the community of south Canyon had no water this

summer for weeks on end. When I attended the south Canyon irrigation

district community meeting, an elderly woman was explaining to me how

her neighbours were helping truck in water to her home, and she was

having to use buckets to flush the toilet and clean. She was completely

distraught.

Yesterday, as my colleague and I were carpooling, travelling from

our homes in the Kootenays to Victoria, we were shocked by the amount of

rainfall. We were rerouted due to the mudslides. En route we received

notification from a friend that they were trapped between two mudslides.

They were forced to stay in their vehicle overnight. We woke up to the

news of rescue efforts of people trapped in their vehicles due to debris

flows. Highways are closed due to mudslides across the province, and

residents have been evacuated due to floods.

A decade ago, we were still discussing the impacts of climate

change as if they were something we were going to experience in the

distant future. We are experiencing the impacts of climate change now,

at this very moment, but also year after year and season after season,

in every community. I would like to thank all the search and rescue

officials, first responders, front-line workers and community members

for their ongoing efforts.

People in my community are not only concerned about climate

change. They are terrified, and so are young peo­ple. It is clear

we cannot continue on the same path as previous generations if we want a

better future for ourselves, our children and our

grandchildren.

Part of my mandate as the Premier’s special advisor on youth is to

develop and chair a provincial youth council to bring forward key

challenges facing youth today. The StrongerBC Young Leaders Council will

give young people a seat at the table to help set direction for our

government’s actions.

Last week, COP26 concluded. The summit brought par­ties from

across the globe to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris

Agreement and the UN framework convention on climate change. It was

labelled the “Last chance summit.” The Glasgow Climate Pact was agreed

on amongst all parties at COP26. But even COP president Alok Sharma

described the agreement as a fragile win.

It is critical to acknowledge that climate change is not only

about the environment. It is about people who are impacted. To quote

Elizabeth Marino: “Climate change is redistribution. It alters the

timing and intensity of our rains and winds, the humidity in our soils

and the sea level around us. As redistribution, climate change is also a

matter of justice. It is about who gains and who loses as change occurs

and interventions to moderate change unfold.” Climate change will

ultimately be about equity.

One of the most exciting announcements at COP26 came from a

Canadian, climate envoy appointee Mark Carney, who announced that

bankers, insurers and inves­tors were committing to pledge over

$130 trillion — that’s trillion with a “t” — over the next three decades

to put combatting climate change at the centre of their work. This will

hopefully be a game-changer.

[10:25 a.m.]

Will this funding also help to smooth the inequities exacerbated

by climate change? Companies in jurisdictions that have made clear

commitments to reducing emissions and decarbonize are well positioned to

attract investment. Because of the work our government has done in B.C.,

we are well positioned as leaders to attract that invest­ment in

our programs and technologies.

Our government’s climate action plan, CleanBC Road­map

to 2030 , is leading the continent. It will ensure that we are

able to meet our emissions targets through accelerated and expanded

actions to respond to the urgency of the climate crisis and build a

cleaner, stronger economy for everyone.

In fact, B.C. was recognized for our innovative approach to

reducing carbon and investing in solutions at COP26. The CleanBC program

for industry was awarded the most creative climate solution from the

coalition, which is a global alliance of state and regional governments

committed to ambitious climate action in line with the Paris Agreement.

That is just one program that we should be celebrating.

I am tremendously proud of the work that our government has done

to ensure that British Columbia is a leader on the global stage in terms

of climate change.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s important for all governments to actually listen to

advice and actually take action when it comes to climate change. Imagine

if a government was to commission a report, say two years ago, around

climate change and the impacts of climate change, a report that would

warn about things like heat dome events, a report that would say — I

don’t know — that in a heat dome event, there might be up to 100 to 120

people who could lose their lives.

Instead, a heat dome event comes. Yes, it devasted cher­ry

crops. It also killed 600 people in this province. Imagine if that

report was ignored, with no action being taken. That is what we see time

and again when it comes to climate action plans. They’re a plan for a

plan with a plan and no actual tangible deliverable.

When climate action gets questioned — why emissions would keep

rising year over year over year — we get told: “Well, it’s a lag in

data.” Then we get told: “Well, we’re actually recalculating how

emissions have been calculated, and lo and behold, it looks better now.”

It doesn’t change what’s actually happening in our atmosphere. It

doesn’t actually change what’s happening in our climate, but governments

are able to present a report that makes them feel better, makes it look

like they’re taking some action.

If a government is not prepared to take action, reading their own

commissioned reports that directly result in the deaths of 600 people,

yet wants to talk about the inequalities that get created because of

climate change…. If you take a look at who those 600 people were, they

were people that couldn’t afford air-conditioning. They were people that

didn’t have a social network. They were people that were living in

substandard housing. They were people that did not have access to make

sure that they were doing the right things to combat the effects of

climate change during the heat dome. It ultimately cost them their

lives.

Instead of taking action on a two-year-old report over that two

years, nothing was done. Instead of taking action to make sure that

people knew and warning systems were in place, nothing was done. So

talking about climate change and patting one’s own back because they

feel like they’re doing something does not actually translate to on the

ground, when 600 people die because reports were ignored and actions

weren’t taken, and that’s simple to see. It’s simple to see in real

terms.

When you think about COVID and think of the tragic number of

deaths and all the steps we have taken to combat COVID, to have 600

people, over the space of two to three days, die is simply not

acceptable. That’s ignoring the actual impacts of climate change while

talking about all the great steps that are being taken to combat climate

change and how climate change creates inequalities. It absolutely does.

It’s too bad action doesn’t get taken. We’re seeing it play out this

weekend. We’re seeing it play out without warning systems. We’re seeing

it play out without proper culvert repair and maintenance going

on.

[10:30 a.m.]

We’re seeing it play out on the heels of devastating wildfires

that have created unstable slopes, knowing that that was going to be the

case but hoping that it wouldn’t rain as hard as it was forecast to

rain. So we now see people trapped, some for 14 hours still, on

highways, desperate to try to get help as temperatures start to drop now

in mountain passes, going from rain to freezing conditions with people

surrounded by wet surroundings, feeling colder and colder and

colder.

We can talk at length about COP26 and an award handed out for a

theoretical plan, or we could actually acknowledge the amount of reports

and recommendations that have been brought forward over the years — and

zero action taken. The results speak for themselves — zero action, 600

people dead in a heat dome event. It could have been

preventable.

In fact, Washington state and Oregon…. I’ll probably mix up the

two death rates. In the same heat dome event, 90 people died and 95

people died in those two states. Six hundred in British Columbia, with

an ignored report for two years.

I look forward to hearing all of the more wonderful and great

marketing plans the government has, but I’d prefer to see actual,

tangible action that would literally save hundreds of lives in this

province if it was taken seriously by this government.

B. Anderson: In addition to a stronger price on carbon pollution and the

CleanBC industrial incentive program, the CleanBC Roadmap to

2030 , led by our Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy and supported by other ministers, identified eight pathways for

how we are meeting our emissions reductions: low-carbon energy;

transportation; buildings; communities; industry, including oil and gas;

the forest bioeconomy; agriculture, aqua­culture, fisheries; and

negative-emissions technologies. In addition, we are going to continue

to work on our climate adaptation preparedness and, in cases like

Lytton, community-wide recovery.

In conclusion, with all of the announcements our government has

made in the last few weeks, I feel a great sense of hope. But as always,

I need to look to my constituents to see if our work is resonating with

them. When we announced our forestry intentions paper and, most

recently, old-growth deferrals, I looked to local experts in my riding

to see if we are on the right scientific and moral path.

Both Nelson-based, PhD-level scientific forestry experts Rachel

Holt and Suzanne Simard spoke out publicly through interviews in support

of our old-growth deferral announcements. Our government is working in

partnership with First Nations to defer harvest of ancient, rare and

priority large stands of old growth within 2.6 million hectares of

B.C.’s most at-risk old-growth forests. It is critical that resource

extraction and development are in alignment with First Nations

goals.

I would like to point to another step forward that our government

made in the last few weeks by finally putting legislative powers in

place to dissolve the resort municipality of Jumbo, a proposed

development that was opposed by local First Nations and the community.

This ended the 30-year-long effort to ensure that the Qat’muk, in the

central Purcell Mountains, remain protected for future generations as an

Indigenous-protected and -conserved area overseen by the

Ktunaxa.

Finally, on Friday, I was able to speak with a young person in my

community who is passionate about climate change, old growth and

reconciliation. Going to this meeting, I was unsure how this young

person, who had spent time protesting, would feel about our

announcements of the old-growth deferrals. He enthusiastically thanked

me for the fact that our government is listening to scientists, a

sentiment that I was able to pass along to the minister on our ride

yesterday from the Kootenays to Victoria.

We know that reducing our GHG emissions and adaptation

preparedness is critically important as we focus on supporting people

and ensuring an equitable society for all British Columbians today and

into the future.

[10:35 a.m.]

SUPPORT FOR B.C. BUSINESSES

D. Davies: I’m pleased to stand here today and talk about supports for B.C.

businesses.

We are all aware of, and I cannot imagine, what the last 20 months

must have been like for businesses in our communities as they’ve

navigated the uncertainty of the pandemic and the economic upheavals

that it has brought with it. As COVID stripped away tourism dollars,

limited seating in restaurants among other restrictions, disrupted

interprovincial travel and brought unprecedented challenges to our

industries dependent on international trade and commerce, we debated the

difficult rollout of provincial supports to our businesses desperately

struggling to keep their doors open and staff employed.

Although we have made progress, these challenges are far from over

for many in our province, and I want to take this opportunity to reflect

on the current situation and challenges that many British Columbians are

still experiencing today.

This time last year, when our province was in the throngs of the

second wave and restrictions were at the height, all of us undoubtably

hoped that this fall would be different. It would be a time of recovery

and relief for our province. But it has been very different than that.

Last fall, before the vaccine was available, all communities across the

province faced similar challenges, and the same level of restrictions

were put in place to help mitigate the spread of COVID. But the

situation is much different today.

Throughout the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Is­land,

businesses are beginning to find some solace and are seeing a slow and

gradual return to some normalcy. This is not the case for every

community across British Columbia. In the Northern Health region,

businesses continue to face a fresh round of circuit breaker

restrictions but can no longer depend on the original supports and

grants that were put in place throughout the province when the original

circuit breaker restrictions were announced.

Despite assertions that supports are still available to these

businesses today, the province’s doors seem to have closed now on many

businesses that are reaching out for help. For instance, the circuit

breaker grant closed June 4, the small business recovery grant closed

July 2, and the launch online grant ended September 30. And although

there is a digital bootcamp available for small businesses, this will do

little to provide immediate relief that the businesses desperately need

today.

Prior to the availability of the vaccine, COVID im­pacted

every single business in every community at the same time. And our

health response and resulting supports for businesses at that time were

as universal as the pandemic itself was. But now that there is a more

regionalized response, which is what we’re seeing, in place to address

the situation in each individual health authority, so, too, should the

economic supports be regionalized. It’s that simple.

It’s not enough to assume that because supports were once

available, these businesses now have the runway to stay afloat, because

that is not the reality we’re facing today. That is certainly not the

reality we are hearing in the north and communities throughout the

Interior. Even in regions of our province where businesses are

experiencing re­duced restrictions, many are still barely managing

to stay afloat as they continue to face labour shortages and

redu­ced revenue. In regions where the restrictions are even

worse, this new wave of circuit breaker measures, without supports,

could be the final nail in the coffin for many of our businesses, on top

of the ones that have already closed.

One business owner in Fort St. John told me recently: “It will

only be a matter of time before businesses like ours close its doors due

to bankruptcy or ownership exhaustion.” Ownership exhaustion — working

around the clock, remortgaging homes on top of just the sheer stress of

being a business owner trying to imagine what tomorrow might bring.

Ownership exhaustion.

[10:40 a.m.]

That same owner told me they’ve never had to lay off staff before

the pandemic, but they are now looking at having to do it for a third

time in the last couple of years. It’s not enough to tell these

businesses that the province will be monitoring the situation. What are

we waiting for?

You can ask any MLA in our health region, and they can provide you

with hundreds of examples of business that have made it very clear that

the time for waiting and monitoring is over. The need for support is

imminent. Otherwise, we will see further permanent closures in

businesses and the further losses of jobs in our more rural and northern

communities.

These businesses are doing their part to help prevent the spread

of COVID by abiding by the circuit breaker restrictions, and they are

losing crucial revenue because of it. It’s time that we show them that

Victoria, that this place, is listening to our rural communities and

that help will be there for them when they need it. I am urging the

government to reopen circuit breaker supports for struggling businesses,

especially the ones in the north, so that we don’t have to see them

close their doors for good.

These are the businesses that support our people, support our

communities’ clubs, support our communities’ sporting groups and really

are a crucial part of the fabric that makes up what our communities are.

We need to stand up and support our communities.

B. Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite.

The recent release of Stats Canada’s labour force survey contains

some good news. The labour force survey for October solidifies B.C.’s

position as leading Canada’s economic recovery, with another 10,400 jobs

added through­out the province last month. The B.C. vaccine card

has created stability in our economy, allowing businesses to remain open

while reassuring British Columbians as we gradually return to

normal.

B.C. has the second-lowest unemployment rate, after Manitoba, at

5.6 percent, and we continue to lead all provinces with a job recovery

rate of 101.9 percent. There are now 51,000 more British Columbians

employ­ed than at the start of the pandemic. That’s a direct

result of people, businesses, communities working together through these

tough times.

However, the effects of the pandemic will continue to be felt for

many months. As we’ve done since the beginning of this pandemic, our

government will be there to support people and businesses as we build

back a strong recovery for everyone.

Our job recovery rate regionally continues to be strong, led by

the Thompson-Okanagan at 107.6 percent. Other notable job recovery rates

are Prince George at 107.1 percent; Vancouver Island, 105.8 percent; the

Cari­boo, 105 percent; Kootenays at 100.3; the Lower Mainland at

100.9; Vancouver, 101.4; and North Coast–​Nechako at 100

percent.

Our government remains committed to lifting people

disproportionately affected by this pandemic. There’s a lot of talk

among economists, currently, about letters. Will the recovery be a U, a

V, an L or a K? A K-shaped recovery tells the story that those at the

top experience economic gains while those in the middle and in the lower

sections experience economic decline. This is what we’re fighting

against.

I got to do some of that work in my role as Parliamentary

Secretary for Technology and Innovation. I was asked to redesign the

innovator skills initiative, or ISI, and consulted with more than 30

stakeholder groups. We listened to both equity-seeking groups and to

businesses. The redesign reflects this.

Through a partnership between the B.C. government and Innovate

B.C., Mitacs and the Information and Communications Technology Council,

or ICTC, 3,000 people from underrepresented groups will have a chance to

get their first job in the tech sector through this ISI program. The

program provides $10,000 grants to businesses and non-profits to help

underrepresented people get their first job in the tech sector or in a

tech-enabled role.

[10:45 a.m.]

The program also helps businesses and non-profits fac­ing

skills shortages to grow and expand. As in years prior, the program

supports businesses to hire students for paid internships and co-op

roles, but in listening to businesses and participants, we have now

opened the program to people that have industry-recognized credentials —

micro-​credential certifications such as the digital marketing or

web design certifications.

The province’s investment of $15 million is being supplemented by

Mitacs and ICTC, bringing the total investment of this program to $29

million. Grants will help cover a new employee’s salary for a four-month

period, and the program offers valuable paid work experience that can

lead people to long-term employment in this sector.

Grants are available to B.C. businesses of all sizes, and

applications are open at the Innovate B.C. website. But ap­ply

soon. I understand it’s getting full.

In the October labour market report, I was also pleased to see

that employment among B.C.’s Indigenous population is 10.6 percent above

pre-pandemic levels, and unemployment rate for people of colour

continues to decline in B.C., now sitting at 1.5 percentage points lower

than the national average.

These positive results tell us a story. They tell us that our

stable, inclusive approach to dealing with the pandemic is working. By

providing more supports per capita for people in businesses than any

other province, workers and business owners are confident about our

vision for the future, which doesn’t leave anyone behind.

On a last note, as we approach the holiday season, please consider

shopping locally to support our B.C. businesses. Gift certificates to

restaurants, theatre, attractions are all great gifts, and they

contribute to supporting a sector that has been hard hit, allowing us to

be a part of the economic recovery.

D. Davies: Thanks to the member for Vancouver–False Creek for her comments —

unfortunately, missed a lot of what I was saying in my comments. We’ve

been talking about…. You know, the member can paint a picture of

recovery and quote the labour force survey, talk about stability in the

economy. The reality is the regionalized piece of this is what we’re not

seeing on the ground. The supports are not in place to support the areas

within the areas that are under the circuit breakers.

As I’ve outlined also in my previous statement, there is, without

a doubt, an urgent necessity for additional regional supports, and it

won’t be enough just to reintroduce previous circuit breaker grants. We

need to re-evaluate, we need to revise the supports, and we need to meet

the specific needs of the businesses that are impacted the most within

those regions.

As I iterated before, it’s not enough to simply assume that these

businesses had access to the first round of grants, because they did

not. Many communities in northeastern British Columbia and along the

whole eastern border share ties with Alberta communities, and their

businesses have been locked out of both B.C. and Alberta supports as a

result.

In fact, I spoke to a few business owners in Fort St. John who are

ineligible to receive the B.C. grants because of partial ownership in

Alberta, but they are paying taxes here in British Columbia. One of the

local businesses was completely excluded from access to B.C. grants

because one of the owners had just moved to Grande Prairie. There are

countless examples of this from B.C. businesses located near the Alberta

border — businesses that now have no hope whatsoever of receiving

supports from the province they operate but pay taxes into.

We also have to consider the industries and the communities that

are impacted. Businesses in the Peace region, for example, depend

heavily on tourism for their revenue and will not see a return to

revenue until we see a full return to international travel and tourism,

which could be months or even years away.

To deliver supports that meet the needs of our busines­ses,

proper consultation is absolutely critical. Government needs to engage

with businesses impacted by the circuit breaker measures so that we can

develop a better understanding of the barriers that keep them from

accessing the supports and getting the help that they need. Government

should not only reintroduce but also redesign the supports program so

that we can ensure that businesses across the province receive the help

that they need to get on the road to real recovery for the future of

their businesses.

I want to quote the member for Vancouver–False Creek. She said:

“Our government will be there to support.” It’s time for this government

to show that they will, indeed, be there for our businesses.

[10:50 a.m.]

UNDERSTANDING DECRIMINALIZATION

AND HARM

REDUCTION

H. Yao: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to allow me to interpret

my private member’s statement in a language more familiar to the members

of my community in this chamber.

謝謝您，議長，我很高興有機會讓我在省議事廳裡用華裔社區熟悉的語言，讓我們社區成員更容易理解。

Recently, through listening to my constituents sharing their

concerns and through various forms of media, I have learned there is a

lot of misinformation of decriminalization in my community.

最近，通過聽取省民分享他們的關切以及不同媒體的報導，我了解到在我們社區裡有很多錯誤信息在流傳。

Let me start by saying that addiction is a health care issue, not

a criminal one.

我先要表達，上癮是一個醫療問題，而不是刑事問題。

Parents try to do whatever they can to help their children have a

healthy childhood and a lifetime of happiness.

所有父母都盡最大的努力，去幫助他們的孩子健康成長和擁有快樂的人生。

One of the greatest fears I have is when my child faces an

overwhelming challenge but is too ashamed or fearful to reach out to me,

my wife, her loved one, or even the community, for help.

我最擔心的是，當我的孩子面臨重大挑戰時，我不希望她因為羞愧或害怕，而不敢向我,

我的妻子、其他親人或社區尋求幫助。

When my daughter grows up and explores the world, like all other

children, she will inevitably have new experiences — some good, some

bad, some that teach her about herself and some that leave a

mark.

像所有其他孩子一樣，我的女兒成長時會碰到不同的生活經歷。有的好，有的壞，有的會讓她更了解自己，也有的會在她的生命中留下痕跡。

Like other parents, her mother and I want to be there for

her.

當他碰到不同的生活經歷時，我和她的母親都希望能在她身邊，給予關懷與支持

We’ll do whatever we can to support her as she faces life’s

challenges, addresses issues, reconciles her relationships and betters

herself from the experiences.

遇到挑戰時，我們將盡力支持她努力走出困境、面對難題、修復關係並從經驗中成長。

However, because of shame and fear, she may choose to hide the

situation, which may slowly erode her self-esteem, quality of life and,

most of all, her happiness. This will potentially become either an

irreconcilable problem or cause irreversible harm to herself or others

around her.

羞恥和恐懼可能迫使她隱瞞所面對的問題。若問題得不到解決，將會奪去她的快樂，影響她的生活品質，同時侵蝕她的自尊心。不僅會對她造成難以挽回的傷害，還會傷害關心她的人。

There is a lot of shame and fear associated with addiction.

Unfortunately, many people who struggle with addiction suffer in silence

and in isolation.

很不幸的是，許多受癖癮困擾的人因為羞恥和恐懼，在孤寂和隔絕中掙扎。

With six British Columbians dying each day of toxic drugs, it is

crucial to help people with addiction, to reduce shame and fear while

helping them access life-saving services and improving their quality of

life.

卑詩省每天有六人死於摻假非法藥物，最重要的是幫助受癖癮困擾的人減少羞恥和恐懼，以及獲得醫療急救和改善生活的服務。

That’s why our government is committed to helping the vulnerable

members of our community to have access to support their needs. This is

the reason why our provincial government is applying to the federal

government for an exception to

section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and

Substances Act.

這就是為什麼我們政府致力於幫助我們社區弱勢群體獲得需要的支持。

這也正是省政府正在申請《管製藥物及物質法》第 56

條豁免的原因。

Decriminalization helps our government focus on pre­vention

and harm reduction and helps people with addic­tions to access

supportive services.

非刑事化有助於我們的政府專注於預防和減少傷害，並幫助受癖癮困擾者獲得支持服務。

Around the world where jurisdictions have established

decriminalization, there’s no increase in substance use at the

population level.

在其他已經非刑事化的地區，並沒有導致藥物使用增加。

We remain focused on preventing problematic substance use,

minimizing harm for those who are using, en­suring that people

with addictions have access to treatment and recovery

options.

[10:55 a.m.]

我們在加強預防非法藥物使用及降低非法藥物對大眾的傷害，並保障癖癮困擾者治療和康復機會。

I also want to emphasize that decriminalization is not

legalization.

我想強調，非刑事化並不是合法化。

Decriminalization is to remove criminal sanctions for people who

have a small amount of drugs for personal uses.

非刑事化是取消對擁有少量個人使用非法藥物者面臨刑事後果。

Police will continue to focus on interdicting drug traffickers.

Organized crime, gang activity and drug trafficking and other

drug-related offences will remain illegal.

警方將繼續打擊非法藥販和有組織犯罪。幫派活動、販賣非法藥物和其他相關的罪行仍是違法的。

Illicit substances will still be illegal and not sold in

stores.

非法藥物還是不能合法在商店出售。

Like all parents, I, too, want to minimize the chance for my

daughter to develop an addiction.

Like all parents in B.C., I, too, want the best for my

child.

我跟卑詩省的所有父母一樣，也想盡量減少女兒上癮的機會。

我跟卑詩省的所有父母一樣，也希望我的孩子擁有最好的未來。

With decriminalization, those who struggle with addiction in

silence and isolation due to fear and shame will be able to reach out

for support they deserve and need. Decriminalization is a vital step

forward in removing barriers to treatment and connecting people with

supportive services without fear of prosecution.

讓我們一起支持卑詩省內需要幫助的人脫離恐懼和羞恥同時得到需要的服務和治療。

而非刑事化將會是重要的一步。

[Mandarin text supplied by H. Yao.]

Deputy Speaker: For members’ information, the statement is provided in both

aware. If you’d like a copy, of course, the member has also made those

available.

All right. Okay, we’re good.

T. Halford: I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Richmond

South Centre for his words. He said something in both languages, which I

applaud that he took the time to do in this House. It’s that all parents

want the best for their children, and I fundamentally agree with

that.

I think one of the heartwarming things is actually I got the

opportunity to speak with the member on the ferry, when we first came

over here last December. He was going through something I had gone

through six years earlier. He was trying to calm a baby down on a

rocking ferry, and he was doing laps, which I smiled at. It brought back

I won’t say good memories, but they were memories. We share that

together.

I appreciate the opportunity to once again speak to the

devastating overdose crisis that continues to plague our province.

British Columbia’s long-running public health emergency has taken over

1,500 lives in this year alone — a staggering 24 percent increase over

the same period from last year. Month after month, hundreds of families

across the province are forced to grieve the loss of loved ones who have

fallen victim to this crisis.

It’s incredibly disheartening that every month we continue to have

to stand in this Legislature and speak about rising overdose deaths. But

more importantly, we continue to see a mental health and addiction

system that is lacking resources, and we do not have it comprehensive or

funded enough to help actually end the cycle of addiction. Immediate

action is needed to expand pathways to recovery so people can get the

help they need, when they need it.

The most recent coroners report revealed both August 2021 and

September 2021 saw the largest number of suspected deaths ever recorded

in those respective months. These are staggering numbers, but behind

each number is a human life. They are a father. They are a mother. They

are a sister. They are a brother. Sadly, we’re on pace to break last

year’s record.

We must redouble our efforts. It’s clear an all-hands-on-deck

approach is needed. As B.C.’s application for decriminalization is in

review by the federal government, there are many more pressing steps

that can be undertaken to help to save lives today.

[11:00 a.m.]

It’s important to look at every tool in the toolbox, but

decriminalization won’t achieve the objective if government does not

ensure that proper health supports are in place in order to culminate

such a significant shift in policy.

We need a seismic overhaul of how we are looking at treatment in

British Columbia. Right now it’s a patchwork, but we have to ensure that

the system is built for those who need access to these services. British

Columbia’s mental health and addiction services were already stretched

and underfunded before the pandemic, and this system continues to

struggle with the additional demand.

People in need of immediate help are now not only facing deadlier

street drugs, but they’re also facing months and months of wait-lists. A

lack of withdrawal management and bed availability — and unaffordable,

privately run services — means that we remain in a crisis. We remain in

a way where we cannot provide services for those who need it, for those

who are struggling with addiction. All members of this House can agree

that more needs to be done to ensure that no one dies while on a

wait-list, but I’ve yet to see any evidence of that urgency.

Earlier this year our caucus asked for the Select Standing

Committee on Health to be activated so that all parties can work

together on immediate actions to prevent further tragedy. We repeatedly

talked, during private members’ time, about a collaborative approach and

the urgency the public health emergency needs, yet there continues to be

a lack of action. This issue should not be about what side of the aisle

the idea came from. It should be about taking every immediate step

possible to save lives.

I do not want to have to continue standing here month after month,

talking about more lives lost to this deadly crisis. However, I will

continue to push for greater supports, in a system that ensures no one

falls through the cracks, until the day the public health crisis is

declared over.

Let’s get to work, all hands on deck, to ensure that this becomes

a reality and that we can actually save lives in this

province.

H. Yao: Thank you, member opposite, for your kind words and

understanding.

[Mandarin was spoken.]

We understand that decriminalization alone will not solve the

illicit drug poisoning crisis. Our provincial government is also

tackling the crisis from every angle.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

我們知道，非刑事化是公共醫療危機的其中一項處理方案。這也是減少污名化的重要一步。我們的省政府也正在從各個角度解決這一危機。

We’ve announced $132 million for new treatment and recovery

services across the province. B.C. is doubling the number of youth

treatment beds, as well as adding more than 100 adult treatment and

recovery beds, and 195 more treatment beds are coming, through Budget

卑詩省已經宣布為新的治療康復服務投入1.32億元。現正在將青少年治療床位的數量增加一倍，以及100多個成人治療和康復床位。2021年撥款中還將新增195張治療床位。

Since 2017, our government has doubled the number of supervised

consumption sites. These sites have had two million visits and zero

deaths.

且自2017年起，我們的政府將監督用藥服務站的數量增加了一倍。現有的服務站已使用200萬次，且在監督下無人死亡。

Access has been significantly expanded through rapid access to

addiction care clinics in all health regions so that more people can

access the care they need, where and when they need it.

通過各衛生局快速醫療，令有需要者獲得服務的機會大大增加，更多人可以及時得到護理。

Following Dr. Bonnie Henry’s order, registered nurses and

registered psychiatric nurses are allowed to prescribe controlled drugs

and substances to reach people who have been traditionally

underserved.

亨利醫師指示，允許註冊護士和註冊精神科護士開出管制藥物處方，以幫助那些平時難以得到服務的人。

B.C.-prescribed safer supply will enable regional health

authorities to begin offering a wider range of medications as safer

alternatives to toxic street drugs such as fentanyl products and

stimulants. Our government is investing $22.6 million over the next

three years to support health authorities in implementing this

policy.

我們的政府還提供了獲得更安全處方供應的機會。卑詩省的安全處方供應將使地區衛生當局提供包括芬太尼等藥物，作為街頭非法藥物的更安全替代品。政府將在未來三年投入2260萬元至各衛生局。

[11:05 a.m.]

Furthermore, our government will introduce an evidence-based

public information campaign that will be de­veloped for the

public, including parents, that will address how to talk about these

topics, health and safety issues related to drug use, and key

differences between decriminalization, legalization and safe

supply.

此外，省政府將以醫學理據向公眾傳達訊息，討論與癖癮藥物相關的健康和安全問題。以及非刑事化、合法化和安全供應之間的區別。

[Mandarin text provided by H. Yao.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your bilingual delivery of your message.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 19,

standing in the name of the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent is required for the House to proceed to

Motion 19 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it

on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 19 — ROLE OF PARENTS IN

CARE OF

CHILDREN

K. Kirkpatrick:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of parents

being directly involved in the care of a child.]

Shocking. Distressing. Devastating. These are words of angry

parents when they heard the NDP government’s recent announcement to claw

back direct funding by 2025 for children with autism. When it comes to

the well-being and care of children, especially children with support

needs, parents should be — they must be — directly in­volved at

the centre of that care. These families, already marginalized and

vulnerable, have been struggling in a system without adequate and

equitable support.

Thankfully, they have found comfort in their access to the autism

funding currently in place to pay for supports such as certified

behavioural analysts and occupational therapists, to name a few, to help

promote skill development for their children. In most cases, this

involves spending a long time to vet and hire the right service team for

their child.

But now these well-established relationships and re­sources

are being taken away by the NDP government. The official opposition has

received numerous emails from parents and advocates expressing serious

concerns for the lack of transparency, information and consultation

regarding this policy and these funding changes. Families are

heartbroken, and in the words of a group: “This decision is downright

unethical.”

This is not an opposition issue. Every MLA in this House has heard

from these same parents, their own constituents, about the stress and

anxiety this policy has caused them. We must understand the profound

impacts these changes will bring to the autism and broader disability

community. During the pandemic, this government’s inability to provide

funding promptly has already burdened these families as they lost

respite support and vital services. When autism funding is taken away,

for many children, their world will be turned upside down, as

transitioning is one of the most difficult things for them.

Here’s what Koryn Heisler said from North Vancouver: “I am a

parent to three children, two of whom have an autism diagnosis. We feel

like we are swimming with our heads just above water, one wave away from

drowning. Taking our supports away would be pushing us under the

water.”

I understand the need to support all families with children with

disabilities. What I’m failing to understand is why the government needs

to take away a model that’s working for families with children with

autism in order to support other and all children, rather than building

on the existing process and system.

This is just one of the many letters we’ve received from impacted

families. There are so many questions that remain unanswered. They’re

asking this government: who decides the needs of a child, and how

qualified are they to do so? Are there enough qualified service

providers who have the knowledge and therapies in this new hub model?

How much funding is being provided for the new hub model? Will at-home

services still be an option? These are just some of the questions going

unanswered by these families.

[11:10 a.m.]

Families and service providers are asking for clear understanding,

information and consultation. They want and rightfully deserve a

respectful dialogue with government. A top-down approach takes away a

parent’s ability to decide on care for their own child and is creating

chaos and confusion.

These distraught parents have been working tirelessly to improve

the lives of their children. They know their children best and should

not be removed from the decision-making process. They want choices and

direct involvement, not the current government’s proposed cookie-cutter

approach to supports.

It’s time for the NDP to show some respect, listen to these

families, and stop the clawback of autism funding.

K. Paddon: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of

parents being directly involved in the care of a child.” When I read

this motion, I thought of how, so many times, in various front-line

roles of advocacy and support, I have heard or worked closely with

families of children with disabilities, and this was the crux. This was

the theme. Parents were involved, but their voices were not heard. Their

choices were limited. Their options were non-existent.

The requirements themselves were barriers. I sat across from

parents whose child did not have the right kind of diagnosis so did not

have access to service. I have planned with parents of youth whose needs

were virtually identical to friends receiving autism supports, but they

received none because they didn’t yet have a diagnosis. I have worked

with adults who struggled with employment because they were not

supported with certain needs or skills as youth because of the stigma

associated with their diagnosis. I have heard from parents that they

can’t find help, that they’re overwhelmed, that managing staff is a

full-time job on top of a full-time job.

I have heard from parents and youth that they need supports

sooner. I have seen families, marriages and careers fall apart as the

pressures and demands of unsupported needs of a child limit the choices

and options for parents, children and families.

This is why I’m so encouraged that we are listening to parents

when it comes to ensuring accessible, affordable child care and

education, and, most recently, that we are listening to parents and the

B.C. Representative for Children and Youth in developing and delivering

a new needs-based approach so that every child and youth gets the

services they need, when they need it, up till the age of 19 and in

every part of our province. No child or youth will be turned away from

services or support if they have needs.

The community living movement was built on the voices and work of

parents, and this is the next evolution. Recognizing the importance of

parents being directly involved in the care of a child means listening

to parents and families when they tell us that timeliness and access are

critical to their child’s development, that it shouldn’t matter what the

condition is called. If a need can be supported, it ought to

be.

Children and youth and their families deserve a wraparound system

that will meet them where they are and not require parents to become

accountants, employers, subcontractors or recruiters, or even be forced

to run their own businesses in order to support their children. Parents

shouldn’t have to be scared of not being able to access services based

on where they live or the name of a diagnosis.

Let’s talk a moment about fear. As parents, we recognize that

change can be a threat. From what I’ve heard from parents of children

and youth with disabilities over the past decades and the past weeks,

any changes to services are scary, especially after spending so long in

a system where scarcity exists. I was there, and I saw when families had

to justify as services and funding were brutally slashed with

devastating and life-changing consequences.

While we know that some parents are finally seeing a light for

their child, we also hear that some are scared that their voices will

not be heard and that it will cost their children. You know what?

Unfortunately, some will try to capitalize on that fear, for their own

purposes. But I want to acknowledge it, and I want to address, with

facts, the fear I’m hearing.

To parents worried about funding that they receive disappearing,

the funding that families receive now through an individualized autism

funding program will continue to be available until the spring of 2025,

and family connections hub operators will work with the family to ensure

that therapies, supports and services will continue helping their

children work towards their goals.

[11:15 a.m.]

What about the people you chose? What about the people your

children trust? We’ve heard from families how important it is to have a

choice of therapists, and there will be opportunities for current

therapists and providers to be part of the new system. In the new

approach, there may be opportunities for providers to subcontract into

the hub to support a child or youth with whom they have a

relationship.

What about funding? Our government has a proven track record of

supporting children and youth with support needs. Budget 2021 included a

$13 million increase for direct services to children with support needs

and to their families, and included over $4 million for staff

re­cruitment and retention. As we begin regional and

pro­vincewide implementation, there will be new investments to

support family connections hubs.

There is so much more information than I can include in five

minutes, and there’s more coming, as we learn, hear more and roll out a

system that doesn’t leave any of our kids behind. I’m grateful to be

hearing from parents — happy, worried, anxious, hopeful. All of them are

working to ensure that their child has what they need: a system that

puts the child and their needs at the centre.

That is a system that can best support our children and youth.

That is a system I am so glad we are building.

J. Tegart: I’m pleased to stand and speak on the motion: “Be it resolved that

this House recognize the importance of parents being directly involved

in the care of a child.”

I don’t think anyone in this House would argue against the fact

that parents and families deserve to be directly involved in the care of

their children. Our families have been, and always will be, the greatest

support networks our children can rely on, the networks that understand

the specific needs of their children. Families develop plans and

strategies over years of daily interaction with their children to

provide them with the supports and care they need.

No member here would disagree with the incredible role our public

and private institutions play in the growth and development of our next

generation of British Columbians — most notably, our education system.

B.C. is blessed to have one of the strongest education systems in the

world, supported by the tens of thousands of teachers and support staff

who have dedicated their professional lives to providing our children

with the best possible education and care.

Of course, in a system that is responsible for more than 600,000

students, there is no one-size-fits-all approach that can accommodate

the learning needs of every student in British Columbia. Parents have

the right to enrol their children in the educational institution that

meets their children’s specific learning needs.

When we’re talking about education, we as a province have a

fundamental duty to ensure that families have the most freedom of choice

the opposite, it’s time for us to step back and rethink our actions. For

ex­ample, I have received hundreds of calls, letters and emails

from concerned parents and families who strongly oppose the proposed

changes to the enrolment boundaries for our independent distributed

learning schools.

As we’ve been told, starting in the 2022-2023 school year, public

and independent online school authorities can only operate within their

district, unless granted special permission from the Ministry of

Education to cross-enrol from another district or authority. This will

mean that students not currently residing within school boundaries will

no longer be able to attend their chosen schools via online

learning.

One of the greatest benefits of IDL has been that enrolment is not

confined to the traditional boundaries of schools and school districts.

In rural ridings like mine, where students can find themselves hundreds

or even thousands of kilometres away from the school that best meets

their learning needs, this flexibility has been invaluable. These

proposed changes have come with little notification and almost no

opportunity for public input or consultation with the families that will

be most affected.

[11:20 a.m.]

These changes not only limit the scope of IDL schools available to

children with special learning needs but also reduce the freedom and

independence of parents to pick the school that will best care for their

children.

Government has a duty to improve the quality of our educational

institutions, but we must also recognize changes that restrict the

availability of learning programs and strip away independence and choice

from parents and families.

I urge government to rethink their decision, pause on the proposed

changes to IDL and offer families the opportunity for consultation that

they are asking for so that we can ensure we are giving parents the

tools and the freedom they need to provide their children with the best

possible education and care.

R. Leonard: It’s simply a self-evident truth that it’s important for parents

to directly be involved in the care of their children. More important to

this House is that government support our most vulnerable children and

families. That is accomplished by building an inclusive system of

supports and services for all special needs children and their families

so that all parents can be the best that they can be, and their children

can all grow up to be best British Columbians that they can

be.

For parents and caregivers raising special needs children, coping

alone to meet their challenges is stressful and exhausting, and when

they face barriers to having those challenges recognized and are denied

supports and services available to others, frustration and despair is

their daily bread. Yet they persevere, because we’re talking about their

beautiful children. This has been the world of families with

neurodiverse and other special needs children.

In 2019, I had the opportunity and privilege to serve on the

Children and Youth all-party committee. We all heard from families and

service providers across B.C. about the system of supporting

neurodiverse special needs children and families. From Terrace to Fort

St. John, from Prince George to Castlegar, across the Island and the

Lower Main­land — it did not matter where we were — the challenges

and gaps, the failures and the unmet need cried out for change after the

previous government had turned a blind eye.

Carolyn Braun, in Kelowna, bravely shared her family’s

heartbreaking journey with their son, who at that point was in grade 7.

She recognized that there was something different about her son as an

infant, but her concerns were discounted. Year after year brought new

challenges — stopping speaking; behaviour problems in school; enduring

parents trying to get him kicked out of school; waiting for assessments

and diagnoses, like oppositional defiance disorder, sensory processing,

ADHD; and then paying for reassessments to consider an autism diagnosis,

all while watching her intelligent boy failing class, suffering mental

anguish and becoming suicidal.

What was her ask? Ms. Braun said: “At the school and within our

community, if we had a collaborative program set up where we could all

sit down as a group — pediatricians, teachers, behavioural

interventionists, child psychiatrists and us, as parents — we could work

together to find the best solutions for the individual child. I think

that would be the best approach.”

In Surrey, Tina Patterson, with a clever, creative son who has

autism spectrum disorder, described the assessment process and getting

support services as “an uphill battle that no family should have to face

when trying to support one’s child. Thankfully, we had the education,

financial resources and moxie to advocate for our son. Sadly, this is

not the case for all children in B.C.”

She also highlighted how parents are left to their own devices

waiting for a diagnosis. She said: “The process of survival and

endurance, as parents juggle commitments striving to support their

child, is in fact a burden that is not equally distributed within our

system.”

How did we get to this devastating point? The Representative for

Children and Youth at the time of the previous government’s 2001 deep,

draconian cuts to child services concluded that the cuts “put the most

vulnerable children, youth and families at even greater risk and stand

in direct contradiction with MCFD’s intention to increase capacity of

families to care for their children.”

[11:25 a.m.]

The all-party committee recommended changes to better serve the

needs of neurodiverse special children, and the ministry, in its own

review, with some 1,500 submissions, agreed. In fact, out of the gate in

2017 and every year since, our government has been increasing

investments to provide more service to better support children with

special needs.

We sought out the lived experience of families and service

providers to guide the way forward. Today we are set to open doors to

meet all children’s functional needs sooner, so parents can access

supports before, during and after receiving a diagnosis, and closer to

home. We are doing it in a collaborative way so that parents are no

longer left stranded to find their own way to their child’s and, indeed,

their entire family’s success.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for the

motion: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of

parents being directly involved in the care of a child.”

Public consultation is a key part of the democratic process. It

gives people the ability to actively participate in the process

government undertakes when making significant decisions, especially

decisions that directly impact them and their children. It’s troubling

when that consultation doesn’t happen, because parents should be

directly involved in the care of their children.

Although this government prides itself on providing services for

all, last year they slashed vital funding from IDL schools, which

provide distance learning programs for some of British Columbia’s most

vulnerable youth. We heard the member for Chilliwack-Kent, a few moments

ago, talk about a proven track record. That is indeed the case, but not

a very good one.

Fast-forward to 2021, and this government is at it again. Now they

have plans to claw back funding from a program that is currently

assisting thousands of families across the province. This time they’re

proposing sweeping changes to autism funding, which are poorly received

by families throughout B.C. What’s worse, this government didn’t bother

to consult with the families and stakeholders that are directly impacted

by these immense changes.

We have seen in the past that a one-size-fits-all ap­proach

rarely works, especially for families living in remote areas in the

province. In creating a hub model, as the government is doing, you

remove the flexibility that parents in rural areas desperately need. We

heard the member for Chilliwack-Kent talk about options. These are not

what this model represents.

In areas such as my riding of Kootenay East, where we already

encounter a lack of resources, travelling hours to reach a hub for these

services will only add pressure to an already stressful situation. I

have had numerous parents reach out to discuss these changes, as this

government has left them with more questions than answers.

A parent from Sparwood asked: “Will these new service hubs be

available to small rural communities? Driving an hour or more, and

sometimes a lot more than an hour, for weekly appointments would be too

much of a strain on our family.” Parents have benefited from the freedom

to choose service providers in their area, and now this government is

asking them to scrap the services in place and drive hours away on a

regular basis.

There has been an outpouring of criticism to this change, and

thousands of parents from across British Columbia have made their voices

heard. Yet time and time again, we have this government announce a major

overhaul to a system in place with minimal contact and

consul­tation with the public. Consultation is important, because

these families have spent years putting in place a team that will help

their child thrive. Moreover, these children and service providers have

spent years building relationships. By taking these relationships away,

government is harming these children, rather than helping

them.

Parents and children that have fostered strong relationships with

their providers are terrified that this change to remove individualized

funding will impede the growth that they are seeing today and create an

uncertain future for their children. A parent, this time from northern

B.C., suggests that: “Rural northern communities are extremely deficient

in a variety of supports. My child needs to click with support

providers, or he will shut down and not engage.” This government should

be taking into consideration the negative consequences this move will

have for children across the province.

[11:30 a.m.]

Like many parents throughout the province, I am concerned for the

well-being of these children as well as their parents. They have worked

tirelessly to ensure their children have the appropriate services in

place to help them reach their full potential. Their service providers

also play a vital role in helping parents cope with their real-life

struggles.

A parent from the Interior writes: “My service provider not only

provides trusted therapies for my kids; my service provider also

supports me, the parent, as I navigate parenting children with special

needs.”

When will this government understand that their one-size-fits-all

hub model will cause significant issues for children with support needs

and negatively affect the parents that work so hard to ensure that their

children’s needs are met? For example, one parent from my constituency,

in Elkford, has four children across the autism spectrum. For her to

load up the car on a snowy winter day with her four beautiful children

and drive a couple hours, one way, to a hub centre is not only dangerous

and impractical but is downright disrespectful.

Clearly, this decision needs to be reversed quickly.

A. Mercier: I’m honoured to stand today in the House and rise to speak to this

motion that the House recognizes the importance of parents being

directly involved in the care of a child.

We’ve heard a lot about that today, but I just want to start by

saying that nobody knows their children like parents. To be a parent in

today’s world is so complicated. Parents are so cross-pressured. This is

something that I didn’t really understand until I had my own kids, which

is that being a parent is a full-time job, on top of everything else

that you have to do. You have to be a jack of all trades now to parent

kids.

The modern world, with all of the pressures of modern life and all

of the pressures facing young people and kids — and, frankly, cost

pressures on households and the fact that both parents have to work in

most cases — means that parents are under a lot of pressure. The role of

the government…. The government needs to support parents. The government

needs to be there to help parents. But that can’t be an excuse to step

back and just abdicate responsibility and to delegate all of the

government’s role to parents.

We have heard from many members in this House, from their own

experience, and the member for Chilliwack-Kent today of the pressure

parents are under when they become the primary and sole coordinator for

their child’s care, on top of everything else. The government has a role

to play here.

Now, the existing patchwork of support for neurodiverse children

isn’t working. It’s not working for a reason. We heard a lot of

criticism about a one-size-fits-all ap­proach by government. I

want to talk a bit about how we got here and a one-size-fits-all

approach that the previous government took, which was draconian

cuts.

There is an excellent book right now written by a former colleague

of many members of this House, George Abbott, called Big Promises,

Small Government: Doing Less with Less in the B.C. Liberal New

Era . It’s an excellent road map into how not to govern and how

to get to where we are. I just want to read out some quotes here from

the book for Hansard on how we got to where we are.

In the book, which is based off of George Abbott’s PhD thesis from

his time as a minister in the Campbell government, he says the

representative for child and youth 2001 annual report, released after

the 2002 provincial budget, is devoted almost entirely to his concerns

regarding the 23 percent, $360 million cut to the Ministry of Children

and Family Development’s operating budget. Among the cuts highlighted by

the advocate were $185.7 million from child protection and family

development; $34.5 million from youth justice, youth services and child

and youth mental health; and $15.6 million from early childhood

development and special needs services for children and

youth.

To implement the cut, and I’m quoting here: “Among these steps

were elimination of behavioural support programs for children with

autism, termination of taking at-risk children into care after the age

of 16, curtailment of the fetal alcohol initiative and closure of the

Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre in Burnaby.”

[11:35 a.m.]

So we’ve seen a road map for how not to do things. This is how we

got here. What we need to do right now is to make sure that the system

is supporting parents and that the government is there to support

parents as they need it. That’s what we are doing by listening to

parents.

I’m not going to breach the confidentiality or sanctity of my

office, but I’ve spoken to many parents who have come in with children

with autism who are at their wit’s end having to coordinate the service

delivery and who don’t have the right diagnosis to get the service they

need. The new framework for children and youth with support needs is

going to fill a much-needed gap, and it’s going to add services. It is

going to add support for 8,300 families in this province.

Every child and youth deserves the support and services they need

to live a full, happy and healthy life and to reach their goals. Not

having the right diagnosis should not be a barrier to access.

We need not go back to the road we took in the path and the road

that got us here, which is draconian cuts and a patchwork of services.

We need to build. It takes longer, and it takes time to build up than it

does to tear things down, as we’ve seen from the experience in this

House and in this province.

D. Ashton: For a government that prides itself on being open and transparent,

for me and for many others, its actions, especially for which I’m about

to speak, actually show the opposite. For the past four years, I have

seen a government that sometimes, to me, doesn’t really seem to

understand the needs of all British Columbians. Rather, they make big

announcements, seemingly without appropriate and inclusive consultation,

and appear to have a very limited idea on how their plans will affect

the majority.

Recently British Columbians got to see this through the decision

regarding concerns from parents and stakeholders about the changes to

individualized funding for children with autism. It appears to me that

this government is set to pick winners and losers, damn the torpedoes,

by advancing their government-knows-best agenda. They are going to see

the results of taking away a parent’s choice, especially when it deals

with a child who needs additional support and extra help to meet their

challenges.

Governments are elected to implement policies that make the lives

of all British Columbians better, not just a few. Changes must be

preceded by direct and broad consultation for all that are going to be

affected, something, to me, that does not appear to happen with this

bill. For me, a major concern is that this government feels that

appropriate consultation is not needed, and they go ahead and announce

the changes and implement the changes without actually talking to the

people that are affected by the changes that are forthcoming.

This change is going to adversely affect thousands of families,

and, more importantly, the current and future lives of the children that

the government says it’s going to help. To me, this is a travesty.

According to Kaye Banez, the president of the board of directors for

Autism B.C., her group “only had half an hour conversation with the

Minister of Children and Family Development in the days leading up to

the announcement.” For a group that has long been advocating for support

and has been working with families who need that support each and every

day, how is a half-hour conversation enough?

Parents have the right to be involved in making deci­sions

for the care of their children, and some have spent years trying to find

the right team of individuals that can help them. With this change in

policy, the hard work put forward by parents and stakeholders will be

taken away, and many, many parents and their children will be forced to

start over.

Some children have had the opportunity to see the same individuals

over a significant period of time, which allows them to be comfortable

and to thrive through that setting. For a government to strip away all

that with minimal consultation and to ask them to start over again, to

me, is appalling.

Amber Hut, one of the thousands of concerned parents who have

signed a petition against the changes, suggests: “We should be keeping

the few things that are actually working in this system and fixing what

is broken.” Instead, we are taking away a model that has worked and

asking parents and, especially, the children to start the process over

again.

I don’t understand that the minister suggests that they will begin

speaking to families on how these changes will be administered. Would it

not be more logical to have these conversations with stakeholders and

parents and the parents of those children affected before you decide a

complete and massive overhaul of the system that has worked for so

many?

We already know that this decision to rush through the changes of

autism funding is creating chaos and confusion for the families, but the

most concerning part of this to me is that the changes will negatively

affect children who need a stable and consistent environment to reach

their full potential.

[11:40 a.m.]

While they should be supporting families that have spent years

creating a plan that works for their child, this government is reversing

the funding that’s allowing them to do that and, instead, asking parents

to trust that the government knows best.

A parent from the Interior says: “I currently use my funding at a

learning centre because my child is not able to go to a public school.

My funding is what makes it possible, and it has been such a success for

him. Without the annual funding, I cannot afford the school. Is it still

going to be covered? What is going to happen to the schools without this

funding?”

Unfortunately, once again, British Columbians are left with more

questions than answers. To me, that’s not kosher for a government that

says it supposedly works for you.

J. Rice: There is an inequity in services delivered for kids who are

neurodiverse or have a disability. Children and youth with Down

syndrome, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy or brain

injuries are not qualifying for services that will help them

thrive.

Every child and youth deserves the supports and services they need

to live full, happy and healthy lives. We’re taking action to put the

needs of children and youth at the centre and make services better, more

inclu­sive and easier to access from birth to age 19 and in every

part of the province. I sit on the Select Standing Committee for

Children and Youth, and these changes are in line with repeated

recommendations from the Representative for Children and Youth and the

all-party committee, as well as from conversations with families,

advocates, children and youth.

We’re putting children and youth at the centre of our new

system.

We’re bringing services together by having multidisciplinary teams

in one-stop family connections hubs throughout the province that will

make it easier for families to get their children the supports they

need. These coordinated hubs, run by community service providers, will

give families access to a range of professionals without the need for a

referral or a diagnosis.

Each hub will be responsible for having consistent core services

and a multidisciplinary team for the children, youth and families they

serve, in addition to services tail­ored for the individual

children and communities they support. These will include

speech-language, occupational and physical therapists, behaviour

consultants and interventionists, as well as other staff, as

needed.

I’ve had exhausted families with kids with autism in my office in

Prince Rupert. They’ve struggled to navigate finding services for their

child. The amount of research, time and energy that goes into sourcing

supports for their child is enormous. That’s for families that are

privileged enough to be able to do so. There are numerous families

falling through the cracks, because sourcing services is a challenging

process at the best of times. In rural B.C., often there are no services

to be found. Services are concentrated in urban parts of B.C.

I’ve also had families come into my office with children with

other support needs or children waiting years for a diagnosis. These

families aren’t qualifying for services at all. I’ve even heard of

families who’ve cleverly shared their autism funding with other families

because a child clearly needed support services but didn’t have the

diagnosis for them.

The Inspire Kids FASD Society of B.C. helps families and children

with FASD, or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, connect to each other and

access services and supports. Here’s what they had to say about our

proposed changes in their statement on the changes announced by MCFD

regarding the service model for children with special needs in

B.C.:

“Children in British Columbia are our province’s most important

resource. Every child in every community should be supported to the full

extent they need to lead a meaningful and full life. This support needs

to be respectful, accessible and individualized for each child and each

family in British Columbia.

“Our current system for accessing support through the Ministry of

Children and Families, children and youth with special needs, has been

challenging or inaccessible for many families. Marginalized families,

children with lesser-known diagnoses, parents with disabilities, parents

who have additional barriers to service and families with added trauma

regarding government programs are all locked behind a door that keeps

them from helping their children lead a safe and happy life.

“In her report Excluded: Increasing Understanding, Support and

Inclusion for Children with FASD and Their Families, Dr.

Jennifer Charlesworth, the Representative for Children and Youth in

B.C., outlined the stigma, trauma and barriers that the current system

has placed in front of youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and

their caregivers.

[11:45 a.m.]

“Inspire Kids looks forward to working with MCFD and partners to

implement an equitable, robust and accessible provincial program that

will reach all children in British Columbia. We commit to holding the

stakeholders accountable, engaging respectfully, being part of the

solution, and working towards empowering and educating families on the

best way to move all children and their caregivers forward to a

meaningful, safe and happy life in our beautiful province.”

For too long I’ve heard from families in North Coast asking for

help to navigate the complex and limited system in supporting children

and youth with special needs. I’ve heard how hard it is to actually find

services in rural B.C.

While I appreciate that change can be difficult, I do think making

services more inclusive and accessible, especially for rural children

and youth, is the right thing to do.

M. Bernier: It’s an honour to rise today to talk about parents and parents’

choice on raising their children.

I want to maybe start by just acknowledging the member for North

Coast…. I’m not sure where she was arguing for the points here on this

debate. She knows all too well, as do I, the challenges in rural British

Columbia as we stand today — the challenges for parents to access

medical opportunities to help their family, supports for their children.

Now we’re at a point where we’re discussing the government, and her

government, the NDP, actually clawing back and making it worse for rural

British Columbians.

I think it’s important to really highlight…. I mean, I’m a parent.

I have five children. I know many of the MLAs in this chamber have

children as well. To actually sit here and debate the fact that the NDP

government figures that they know better than all of the parents in

British Columbia is astounding to me, for government to think that they

know best. I mean, the whole point is listening to parents, parents who

are raising their children.

You know, I know the members want to heckle. It’s unfortunate that

they are trying to insinuate that we’re politicizing an issue when all

we’re doing is defending the rights of the people of British Columbia,

who have been contacting this House, who have been contacting us with

their concerns, with their outright displeasure with what government is

doing right now without consultation, without listening to the parents

who know better.

It’s absolutely astounding that the NDP members say — by us

reading quotes, by us talking about the concerns that people of British

Columbia are raising — that that’s politicizing. Well, shame on them.

They need to actually start listening to these same parents that we

are.

Taking choice away is wrong. Clawing back supports is wrong. Now,

whether that’s taking education choice away…. We heard the Education

critic earlier talk about IDL, where parents are now being told what

kind of education choice government is now going to make for them, that

they can no longer necessarily choose the independent school that’s

working for their disabled child because they now have to maybe go to a

school district within their area. They’ve lost that choice.

For the few members on the NDP benches that are actually from

rural B.C., I’m surprised they’re not fighting against this as well,

because we know how challenging it is to have those supports and those

choices in rural British Columbia. To take them away is downright wrong.

When the Minister of Children and Family Development announced this new

hub model, it caught everybody off guard because there was no

consultation, no discussion. Parents are rightfully scared and

concerned, because their choice is being clawed back. They were

blindsided.

The minister stood in this House and said: “Don’t worry. Every

community in this province is going to get supports.” How is that a

rational comment? How is that possible? Is she saying there’s going to

be a hub in Fort Nelson? Is there going to be a hub in Pouce Coupe? Is

there going to be a hub in Prince Rupert, as we heard from the member

there? I really doubt it.

[11:50 a.m.]

How is there going to be extra support? It’s going to make it more

difficult for children and for families in rural British Columbia, when

they already have to look at the…. I will say this. There are already

limited resources.

Let’s fix that. Let’s fix that challenge. But you don’t fix it by

blowing up a system that’s working for thousands and thousands of

children and families in this province and clawing back the supports

they have with this altruistic top-down idea that you are actually going

to help by taking something away. That is downright not factual, and

it’s wrong. It’s not going to help these kids.

We’ve heard that there are children and families falling through

cracks right now. If that’s the case, fix that issue.

I support government 100 percent, if they can find a way of fixing

that. But clawing back supports for families who already have supports

is not the way to fix the issue.

J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, I am scheduled to speak, but first, I would like

to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Visiting us today is a very special guest

from Surrey. We have Paul Sumal. He is a public servant for 16 years as

a deputy sheriff at the New West Supreme Court. Paul has been a

president of my Fleetwood B.C. NDP association for many, many years, and

he has provided significant leadership to our people and has done a

super job to support me as an MLA and also as a candidate. So I would

like to say, Paul, thank you very much.

Joining with him is his beautiful wife, Daween Sumal. She is the

assistant director of capital infrastructure project delivery at B.C.

Hydro. They have two beautiful daughters. Abigail, in grade 7, enjoys

competitive dance, gymnastics and swimming and wants to be an interior

designer. The next one is Julianne. She is in grade 5 and enjoys

dancing, gymnastics, swimming and soccer and wants to be a police

officer when she grows up. Then we have Alisdair, their son….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. How long is your list, because you are going to

run…?

J. Brar: This is the last.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

J. Brar: Their son, grade 3, enjoys soccer, gymnastics and swimming but

would like to start playing football.

I would like to ask the House to please make them feel

welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Brar: Once again, I am pleased to respond to the motion introduced by

the member for West Vancouver–​Capilano.

Every child and youth deserves the supports and services that they

need to live a full, happy and healthy life and to reach their full

potential. That’s why we are putting children and youth at the centre of

our new system moving forward.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have been listening to the members from the other side, and it’s

very clear to me that they have a completely different perspective.

Talking about listening to parents is important, and all that, but their

record in government does not match at all with what they are proposing

today, sitting on the opposition benches.

The B.C. Liberal government came down with massive funding cuts to

the programs and services designed for the care of children immediately

after taking over in 2001. These are not my words, Mr. Speaker. George

Abbott, a long-term MLA and a former cabinet minister under the B.C.

Liberal government, recently published his first book, and he takes a

surprisingly critical look, in this book, at the tragic impact on

children, youth and disadvantaged British Columbians as a result of the

massive tax cuts that the B.C. Liberal government introduced during

their first days in government to please their wealthy

friends.

[11:55 a.m.]

These cuts meant a huge loss of revenues to the pro­vince.

As a result, the B.C. Liberal government began to ruthlessly cut

spending on social programs and services, including a 23 percent funding

cut to the Ministry for Children and Family Development, known as MCFD

at that time.

Paul Pallan, the former Child, Youth and Family Advocate, devoted

his 2001 annual report, released after the first B.C. Liberal budget,

almost entirely to his concerns re­garding the devastating impact

of a 23 percent cut — in other words, $360 million — to the MCFD’s

operating budget. George Abbott, a person well known to members on the

other side, states in his book that 9,000 B.C. families lost their child

care subsidies, and this forced some of them to abandon their child care

spaces.

So the advocate urged the government — and made a compelling case

— to exempt MCFD from budget cuts, to save programs and services for

children. But no one listened to him, or to parents, or to children.

That’s what the members sitting on the other side did. Some of the

members who sit on the other side today were part of that

government.

We are putting children and youth at the centre of our new system,

moving forward. Under the current system, many children and youth who

have disabilities or other needs are not able to access the levels of

support that they need, because they do not have the right diagnosis to

access services, or services are not available in their community. This

is especially true for rural and Indigenous communities. That’s why we

are moving to a new needs-based approach, so that every child and youth

gets the services they need, when they need it, and in every part of the

province, including rural areas.

We are bringing services together through new family connections

hubs, and these coordinated hubs will give families access to a range of

professionals, without the need for a diagnosis. No child or youth will

be turned away from services or supports if they have support needs,

under the new program.

I am very pleased to support and to continue this new program

under this government.

T. Halford: I stand in this House and speak proudly to the motion put forward

by my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that a few members have come in here

with a set of talking points. When I see that, it always is a very

strong signal to me that that’s because maybe a few people in this

building don’t want you talking about that, and they want you sticking

to those talking points. But I’m not going to stick to talking points

today. I’m going to tell a story.

There is a little boy that I know. I know this little boy very

well. I’ve known him for 13 years. This little boy tried out for soccer,

and he didn’t like it. He didn’t feel like he had a place. This little

boy went out for football, and again, he felt like he didn’t have a

place. This little boy, at the age of six, was diagnosed with ASD. This

little boy had parents that had fear, every time he walked out of the

House, to see if he was going to be accepted, to see if he was going to

be able to meet those challenges on his own — every day. That is a fear

that his parents continue to have today.

[12:00 p.m.]

Since this little boy wasn’t able to participate in team sports,

his parents got him a trainer — somebody that he was able to work with,

a couple of days a week, to ensure that he was staying active, that he

was getting physical, that he was understanding about nutrition. I think

it’s important that parents….

With autism, they are faced with the fact that children need

stability. They need consistency. It is very important to children with

autism that they have consistency and routine in their daily lives. Not

one member on that side can speak to consistency and how this model

makes that better.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Surrey–White Rock has the floor. No interruptions,

please.

T. Halford: And I would challenge the member for Surrey-Fleetwood. If he’s

going to come in here and cite past members, he may want to check their

names first.

Other than that, I do want to make sure that we stand up for those

little boys and girls that are in our communities, that are in our

homes. For us to come in here and say: “No. Government knows best. We

will take it from here, parents. We will provide. We will pick the

services that your child will need….”

I want a member of that side of this House to explain to the

little boy that I just described how they know better than his mom and

dad, because they don’t. The members of this House know it. But they

don’t have the ability to come here and speak the truth. And that is

shameful.

I think that these parents, these families, deserve better than

what this government is giving them today. They absolutely do. I cannot

believe a decision of this importance was done in this isolation. That

is shameful. That is wrong. That is cowardly. This government knows it,

and these members know it. That is why they come in here and they read

speaking points, because they have nothing else to say. That is a sad

reality.

So how, when you have a constituent come into your office and

express their outrage at what is going on here…? It is happening to

every single MLA in this House. I dare one of the MLAs to challenge me

and say that’s not true — that your inbox is not filling up from

parents, that your phones are not ringing from parents advocating for

their kids. Do you refer to those speaking notes? Do you cite former

members? Do you cite books? If you can do it in here, why don’t you do

it to them?

That’s all I have to say on this. I really can’t say much

more.

T. Halford moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Whiteside moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.