Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 1, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 318

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 27 — Money Judgment Enforcement Act

Hon. N. Sharma

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Neighbourhood houses

S. Chant

Quails’ Gate Winery

N. Letnick

Watershed security

F. Donnelly

Asian Heritage Month and anti-Asian racism

T. Wat

Child care and early childhood development

K. Chen

Mental health and wellness

E. Sturko

Oral Questions

Police services in Surrey

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Halford

Safety of children in government care

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

Police officer staffing and funding for police

services

T. Stone

Hon. M. Farnworth

E. Sturko

Reports from Committees

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills Committee, report on Bill Pr401, May 2023

H. Yao

M. Lee

Petitions

H. Yao

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

Hon. K. Conroy

P. Milobar

R. Merrifield

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. A. Dix

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

E. Sturko

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

(continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

T. Wat

Estimates: Other appropriations

MONDAY, MAY 1, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Coulter: It’s not often I get constituents here in the House, but I’m pleased,

today, that I have two constituents here in the House, Trevor and Tracey

McDonald.

Trevor is the director of the Downtown Business Im­provement

Association for Chilliwack as well as involved in many, many community

events. He’s also the producer of Downtown with Dan videos. I must say he’s

a very, very popular personality in Chilliwack. When I’m standing on a

street corner with him, far more people say hi to Trevor than

myself.

Tracey is the lifestyle program manager for Chartwell Hampton House,

and she’s been making seniors’ lives better for 18 years now.

Would the House please welcome them.

Hon. B. Ralston: I have two introductions today. Joining us in the gallery this

afternoon are members of the Consular Corps of British Columbia. The

Consular Corps, based mainly in Vancouver, is the official body comprising

all consular officers resident in the province representing over 80

countries and four international organizations.

[1:35 p.m.]

They are here today to participate in briefings by the government.

Today we have representatives from over 40 different countries and

international organizations. I would like to recognize the dean of the

Consular Corps and Consul General of Mexico, Berenice Diaz

Ceballos.

Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the members of the

Consular Corps of British Columbia who are with us here today.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Richmond North Centre.

Sorry, Minister. Continue.

Hon. B. Ralston: Oh, thank you. I had a second introduction, Mr. Speaker, with your

leave.

I want to introduce today, Nav Koonar, the new director of operations

for the B.C. Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau, a non-profit organization that

promotes value-added for­estry products based in Abbotsford. Nav is an

operations leader, specializing in managing 24-7 manufacturing plant

operations, and has a master’s degree in business and a bachelor’s degree in

engineering.

The B.C. cedar shake and shingle industry is an important economic

contributor, I think as members know, to the province of British Columbia,

as well as to communities throughout the province.

Would the House please make Nav welcome today.

T. Wat: In the public area today, there are six Richmond residents and my

supporters all the way, taking a ferry this morning coming to the people’s

House. They are also members of the B.C. Jade Association of

Canada.

Will the House join me in welcoming Nenghui Zhong, Chung Jiat Pin,

Susan Sun, Han Changfu, Salley Saltjandra and Wei Ke Feng.

E. Ross: Today the Canadian Propane Association is here with us. We all know we

have unanimous support for propane in this House, and they’re here today to

actually meet with MLAs from both sides of the House.

We know propane has been in our country for the better part of 100

years. We also know there’s so much more potential we could be doing with

propane, both domestically and internationally. That’s what the

representatives of the Canadian Propane Association are here to do with us

today and tomorrow.

So would the House please make welcome Shannon Watt and Sherri Clair

of the Canadian Propane Association.

Welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, the member for Burnaby-Lougheed and myself have

some special guests. They are Paul Choi, president of Burnaby North Road

Business Improvement Association. Executive members in attendance are Calvin

Lee, June Park and Chris Shin.

Burnaby North Road Business Improvement Association is a non-profit

organization that represents businesses and property owners along the North

Road in Burnaby, and they’re committed to business development, to promotion

of the district and the overall vitality of the area.

Would all members of the House please make them feel very

welcome.

A. Walker: I’d like to introduce the House to my dad. He is somebody who many

people in my community look up to, not just because he’s 6 feet 2, but

because he has contributed immensely to our community.

Would the whole House please make him feel very welcome, Ken

Walker.

M. Bernier: It’s not often I get somebody who makes the long trek from the far

corner in northeast B.C. down to Victoria, but a gentleman in our region

runs a podcast, Kevin Unscripted , and he’s been trying to travel

around the province, learn more about politics.

I put the offer to him about six weeks ago, when doing a podcast, that

you’ve got to see what politics really is about. You should come down to

Victoria. He took us up on that offer. So we have Kevin Willeboordse from my

region, the South Peace, who made the long trek down here.

Will the House please make him welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I just wanted to wish a happy 65th birthday to Janine Fuller.

She’s a longtime watcher of this place and our work, incredible fighter for

human rights and against censorship.

Also, a happy 40th birthday to Little Sister’s bookshop, which she was

the manager of for many, many years.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: All members of this House were invited to meet and hear the stories of

a woman who shared her cancer diagnosis with us today at lunch. I just want

to acknowledge the work of the B.C. Cancer Foundation, the tremendous work

that they’re doing. I don’t know if they’re here joining us, but I know that

all members of the House are joined together in being grateful for their

work.

While I’m on my feet…. I had announced three months ago that my cancer

had returned. I’m very proud and pleased to say that, with treatment, my

tumour has been reduced by 40 percent. I want to thank all members for the

well wishes and the kind words and the check-ins that I’ve received. It’s

because of the work of the B.C. Cancer Foundation that I get to stand here

in this place and so many of my colleagues get to stand here as

well.

I want to remind everyone about the Tour de Cure. We have a couple of

journalists who are going to be participating in it, and they’re looking

forward to your support.

A. Olsen: I had the opportunity earlier today to meet with nine students from

the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership School. Bryce

Fingado’s class, the climate leadership class, came and was doing a tour.

They had the opportunity to sit in and watch the operation earlier today,

before lunch.

I would just like to ask the members here, after they have already

gone, to please make the students from the

W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership School feel very

welcome to this House.

As well, I want to say…. My uncle Curtis Olsen is the administrator at

that beautiful school that we have in

W̱SÁNEĆ. He’d be very happy with the

jersey that my friend the intern from the legislative internship program is

wearing. Of course, it’s a beautiful Toronto Maple Leafs jersey. My uncle

Curtis would be very happy that that jersey is in the House here

today.

Could the members of this House please make that jersey very welcome

in here.

S. Furstenau: Today in the gallery is my friend Cammy Lockwood. Cammy and her

husband, James, run, own and operate Lockwood Farms. I expect almost

everybody in this House has probably eaten Lockwood eggs. They are

distributed widely, and they are delicious. Cammy and James are

award-winning farmers, innovative, sustainable and focused on a future that

we can all be proud of.

Would the House please make Cammy most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT

ENFORCEMENT

ACT

Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Money Judgment Enforcement

Act.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Money Judgment En­forcement

Act. If passed by this Legislature, the proposed legislation will make

it easier for people to get the money owed to them following a civil

court decision or a tribunal decision. It is based upon draft

legislation developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada that has

been customized for British Columbia by the British Columbia Law

Institute and my ministry.

A key aspect of this legislation is that it moves much of the

process for enforcing a money judgment out of the court. People will no

longer have to keep returning to court to get additional orders such as

writs of seizure or garnishing orders. Instead, they’ll be able to

register their judgment in a money judgment registry, which will be part

of the existing personal property registry, and then give a single

enforcement instruction to a civil enforcement officer, which will be

the new name for court bailiffs.

While the primary purpose of the legislation is to improve the

enforcement of money judgments, I wish to reassure members that the

legislation continues the existing protections provided to judgment

debtors and expands upon these protections by exempting additional types

of property from seizure and by moving maximum and minimum amounts that

can be claimed as exempt into regulation so that they can more easily be

adjusted to reflect inflation.

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

Motion approved.

[1:45 p.m.]

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES

S. Chant: First, I acknowledge being on the lands of the

lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Songhees

and Esquimalt First Nations.

As always, I am deeply grateful to represent the people from North

Vancouver–Seymour, situated on the unceded territory of the Squamish and

Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

I rise today to celebrate April 30 to May 6 as Neighbourhood House

Week. Neighbourhood houses are warm and welcoming places that are like a

second home for people to find community, support and

friendship.

Neighbourhood houses recognize the importance of connecting with

others in a supportive, inclusive environment to build stronger

communities. They are safe places that focus on social inclusion and can

help people feel less isolated. They represent diversity by providing

services and activities for all kinds of needs and all kinds of people,

including children, youth, adults, seniors, families, New Canadians,

everyone. They ensure programs are accessible to those who benefit from

a supportive accommodation.

Neighbourhood houses are also part of the network of food banks

throughout B.C. that ensure access to fresh and nutritious food. People

of all ages and nationalities and with different barriers to inclusion

can come together at neighbourhood houses to feel seen, see others and

create better and more diverse communities to live in. Neighbourhood

houses are non-profit organizations that offer leadership and volunteer

opportunities so participants can engage while giving back to their

communities.

I want to give a proud shout-out to the neighbourhood house that

epitomizes all of this community-building work. For more than 80 years,

the North Shore Neighbourhood House in North Vancouver has been meeting

inclusiveness as their guiding principles. I am grateful for the role

they play across the North Shore.

I invite all members to join me and everyone in British Columbia

in recognizing April 30 to May 6 as Neighbourhood House Week and welcome

everyone to their neighbourhood home away from home.

QUAILS’ GATE WINERY

N. Letnick: I would argue that every member in this House is a leader in their

own way. I want to honour one particular leader amongst us.

Today I would like to recognize an incredible winery in the

Okanagan Valley. After receiving their vineyard certification in 2022,

they have now completed the necessary requirements to also obtain their

estate certification from sustainable winegrowing British Columbia. With

the combination of these two certifications…. I’m honoured to share that

they are now the sixth winery in B.C. to have ever achieved full

certification.

This is a monumental achievement as one of Canada’s most prominent

family-owned and -operated wineries, which spans three generations. This

certification speaks volumes about the dedication and commitment towards

sustainable practices. This commitment is reflected in their priorities

of environmental responsibility, equity and economic visibility. Their

dedication will continue the overall preservation of the South Okanagan

Valley and allow many others to grow their businesses for years to

come.

Having known this family for many years, their dedication and

impact have completely blown me away. I would encourage anyone visiting

the area to take the time to see the winery firsthand while enjoying its

incredible restaurant and lakefront accommodations. The work his family

has put in will support so many generations to come, and I am very proud

not only to call him a colleague but also a friend.

Can anyone and everyone please give a round of applause for

Quails’ Gate Winery and our very own MLA for Kelowna West.

WATERSHED SECURITY

F. Donnelly: I recently had the pleasure of attending a networking reception

celebrating the launch of Working for Watersheds. It was a remarkable

event. The atmosphere was buzzing with excitement as leaders from

business, clean tech, government and skills training came together to

discuss the potential of B.C.’s watershed sector.

The working session earlier that day provided an opportunity to

take a deeper dive into what the watershed sector could look like in

just five to ten years, and it appears there is a very strong demand for

these jobs. British Columbia is leading the way when it comes to

addressing the water crisis by leveraging the economic opportunities of

Working for Watersheds.

[1:50 p.m.]

With 47,000 direct and indirect jobs identified in the watershed

sector and $5 billion in GDP, according to the latest Delphi Group

report. Good, family-sustaining jobs are being created to secure

watersheds and create climate resilient communities. This sector is on

par with agriculture, oil and gas and mining.

I left feeling inspired to do my part to ensure the watershed

sector continues to thrive and motivated to help grow the $157 million

our government has invested in watershed security. For less than the

cost of building a major bridge, our government is creating a legacy of

long-term employment and healthy watersheds. By investing in watershed

security and a restoration economy, we are mitigating the massive costs

associated with flood response and recovery, droughts, wildfires and

other climate-related disasters.

We encourage the federal government to come to the table by

matching our investment as we build the watershed sector and make

lasting gains in reconciliation, rural, coastal and urban employment,

stimulate economic opportunities and achieve climate and biodiversity

targets.

I look forward to seeing the positive impact of our watershed

security strategy and fund and the growth of B.C.’s watershed

sector.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

AND ANTI-ASIAN

RACISM

T. Wat: In Canada and here in British Columbia, we celebrate May as Asian

Heritage Month. It’s an opportunity for us to reflect and learn about

the achievements and contributions of Asian Canadians throughout our

province and our nation. It is also a chance to acknowledge and condemn

the history of anti-Asian hate and discrimination in this

province.

Asian British Columbians have experienced racism and displacement

by discriminatory policies crafted in this very chamber. Sadly, this

discrimination and hate is not a relic of the past. Anti-Asian hate

crimes have surged across the province since the start of the pandemic

in 2020. This is something we must all work together to confront and

eliminate, to build a sense of belonging and a pathway to success for

everyone.

Asian British Columbians have broken down barriers and made

outstanding contributions to B.C.’s culture, history and economy. Asian

heritage is British Columbian heritage. The history, struggles and

achievements are part of the story of British Columbia, alongside many

others that make up the diverse communities of our province.

This Asian Heritage Month, let us all recognize the contribution

and achievements of Asian British Columbians but also reaffirm our

commitment to fighting against anti-Asian discrimination. We must keep

working to make B.C. a place where everyone feels welcome and where

people can celebrate their culture and heritage, which builds the

cultural mosaic of our great province.

I hope you will join me in celebrating Asian Heritage Month and

these wonderful Asian-Canadian communities across B.C.

CHILD CARE AND EARLY

CHILDHOOD

DEVELOPMENT

K. Chen: Do you know how our childhood experience can impact the rest of

our lives, our personalities, reactions, relationships, the way we are

and who we are? Do you know how 90 percent of our brain growth happens

before the age of five, which can also shape our future learning, health

and whole-life success?

Recently we’ve debated so much about mental health, health, crime,

social issues in the House. Every time I hear about those debates, I

think about how critical it is to invest in child care and early

learning. To solve many, many of the issues, if not all the issues,

investing in public education and child care is one of the most

effective and principled things we could do as politicians and temporary

seat holders in the House to fix things in the long term.

If we only focus on short-term needs and solutions, the 2018

Childcare B.C. plan and the 2021 Canada-wide early learning agreement

would have never happened. It is such an important investment that has

already changed the lives of many families today and will for

generations to come. We still have a lot to do.

May is Child Care Month. I’m thinking of a single mom who told me

how she could not find or afford child care, so she ended up leaving her

job and living on assistance for a period of time. She described it as

the worst time of her life not just financially but also socially,

emotionally. It also impacted her children significantly.

[1:55 p.m.]

Not investing in child care hurts families, hurts our economy and

hurts the foundation of our society. It leads to many of the problems we

debate in this House. It can affect generations to come.

Today I want to celebrate Child Care Month, recognizing of all the

families, advocates and early learning professionals who have pushed the

government for better changes.

Let’s all celebrate Child Care Month with continued investments,

meaningful actions and bold policies to bring equitable, affordable,

inclusive child care to all families in B.C.

MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS

E. Sturko: Today kicks off Canadian Mental Health Week, and it’s an

opportunity for all of us as MLAs to have an open and safe space to

discuss our own mental health challenges so that we can help end stigma

and promote mental wellness.

The theme in this year is “My story,” and I’m proud to have shared

my own experience with PTSD this year. If my story helps another to feel

comfortable about opening up about their own mental health, then it’s a

step in the right direction towards cultivating healthy

communities.

In my professional experience as a police officer, I often

answered the call for wellness checks and people in crisis, people who

were struggling with their mental health in ways that are

incomprehensible to many of us. I know from working on the front line

that there’s not enough support in place for those in need of immediate

support and that we must do more to provide services to intervene before

a crisis occurs. We must do more to support people so that no one will

fall through the cracks of our mental health system.

I’m proud to have introduced a private member’s bill earlier this

year to help people like Todd Marr and Nicole Chan, who were turned away

when they reached out for help and tragically lost their lives. We see

their stories repeated all too often.

This is why I encourage everyone to spend time not just this week

but throughout the years sharing their personal stories so that we can

reduce the stigma and bring more mental health support for struggling

British Columbians.

Throughout this week, let’s all stand together and use the

#mystory to spread positive information.

Oral Questions

POLICE SERVICES IN SURREY

S. Bond: Well, after 4½ years, the people of Surrey expected and deserved

an end to the chaos and confusion. But instead, once again this

Premier’s utter lack of leadership has left residents, police officers

of both forces and an entire province in limbo. Instead of ending the

confusion and uncertainty, this government only added to the chaos by

announcing some kind of vague $150 million grant for municipal policing

costs with absolutely no details.

Under this Premier’s watch, there is a massive police officer

shortage regardless of what badge they wear. British Columbians are left

wondering how on earth it is beneficial for public safety, and not

merely NDP politics, to vaguely offer $150 million for the Surrey police

service while providing zero for the RCMP.

Why is this Premier continuing the chaos by providing funding

exclusively for one police model and not the other?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I will note that she is a

former Attorney General and Solicitor General. She will know that under

the Police Act, the responsibility I have was to make a decision on a

request by the city of Surrey to transition back to the Surrey RCMP.

That’s the authority that I have. That is the decision that I am able to

make.

So when the city of Surrey said they wanted to transition back

after an election in 2018 where they unanimously said they wanted to go

to a provincial police service and then in the subsequent election said

they now want to go back to the RCMP, they have to provide my ministry,

myself, the director of police services with a plan on how they propose

to do that. Because as Solicitor General, my responsibility is to ensure

public safety not just in Surrey but right across the

province.

[2:00 p.m.]

Surrey is far and away the largest RCMP detachment in this

province but also in this country. The impacts of any transition can

have a significant effect on other communities — such as Prince George,

for example; large and small, such as my own area.

We asked the city of Surrey and the RCMP to provide the

information on how they would do a transition. That information was

received just prior to Christmas. There was additional information and

questions from that. That was received in February. My ministry staff,

director of police services, worked and did a thorough, comprehensive

analysis in terms of the plan. Would it ensure public safety, safe and

effective policing, for a transition in Surrey? The recommendation came

back, and the answer was no, it would not.

My response was to communicate that the plan would not be

approved, but the best way forward for the city of Surrey was to a path

to continue on that transition to the Surrey police service,

acknowledging that there were costs associated with that that the city

of Surrey had identified, that Deloitte had confirmed, and, because I

know it’s not the city of Surrey’s preferred option, agreed that we

would work with them to deal with those costs, to ensure that they are

not borne by the taxpayers of Surrey or the business taxpayers of

Surrey.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I’m certain that answer isn’t going to provide any

additional clarity or confidence to the people of Surrey.

And let’s talk about transparency. Eighty percent of a 500-page

report was redacted. That’s the Solicitor General’s comment about

transparency.

Here is the bottom line. At a time when this province is in the

middle of a crisis in violent crime, whether it’s random attacks or

social disorder, the Premier steps in, and guess what happens. More

confusion than ever.

This Premier and this government have been all over the map for 4½

years, leaving a giant cloud of uncertainty over the heads of the people

of Surrey. Last fall the Solicitor General declared: “I know one thing.

The province will not be contributing any money.” Well, apparently the

Solicitor General was wrong.

It probably came after heavy polling on the issue. The Premier is

playing politics with $150 million, in provincial tax dollars, which has

only added to the confusion instead of addressing the growing public

safety crisis.

Why are the residents of Surrey, and all of British Columbia,

forced to pay the price for this Premier sowing chaos and confusion, all

the while ignoring public safety?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for the question. I find it somewhat

ironic that a former Attorney General and Solicitor General would not

acknowledge that the redactions are because they are RCMP confidential

information that relate to the staffing strengths of various detachments

around the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And as Solicitor General, I am not authorized to release that

information. More importantly, I would like to think that at least the

opposition would want to make sure that confidential information such as

that should remain that way. And you don’t give that information to the

criminals.

T. Halford: Wow. The people of Surrey deserved some form of clarity from this

minister when he found it a priority to actually make an announcement —

an announcement that was costing the taxpayers of Surrey $8 million a

month by this minister sitting on his hands and waiting to play

politics.

The minister says…. He talks about….

Interjections.

T. Halford: This is apparently funny to the government side of things, but

it’s not funny to the taxpayers of Surrey that are waiting for…. You

should know that.

Eighty percent of a 500-page report redacted not just to the

public but to mayor and council, people that were trying to respond and

make a decision — 80 percent. And 75 percent of a 40-page report from

the director of police services also blacked out.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now this government and this Premier choose to play politics on an

issue that is paramount to the safety of the people of Surrey. You know

what? We have a Premier that has failed and failed time and again. We

have a Premier who has authored a book on how to sue police. We have a

Premier and a Solicitor General who have failed to give any direction to

the city of Surrey.

My question to the Premier, who’s sitting there laughing, is this.

When will the Premier find the time to make it a priority and give some

direction on this matter today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say this to the hon. member. I’d thank him for the

question. Perhaps he should take time to read the Police Act, because if

he did, he would find out what I am authorized to do under the Police

Act when it comes to a request for a municipality that wants to reverse

a decision.

I’ll make this point. It’s not the provincial government that

said: “Oh, we want to go back to the RCMP.” It was the city of Surrey,

halfway through a transition, that said they want to go back to the

RCMP.

The reality is this. It is about public safety, and that’s why the

director of police services in my ministry, the staff in my ministry

have taken the time necessary to do a thorough examination of all the

issues around that to make sure that a recommendation, advice to me, in

terms of the plan that was put forward by the city of Surrey and the

RCMP on a transition would provide safe, effective public safety in the

community and, indeed, for the rest of the province, as is my

responsibility.

The recommendation was no. The decision was no, the plan cannot go

forward. The best path forward, and that was the recommendation I gave

to the city of Surrey, was to continue on the path to the Surrey police

service as the most effective way to provide public safety not only in

the city of Surrey but right across the province in communities like

Prince George, in communities like Terrace, in communities like Kelowna,

where council after council have said they want to have additional

police resources.

The people engaged in that — many of them, most of them have spent

their entire careers in policing. I will take their advice and the

confidence in the work they have done any day over that of the

opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: I guess it is the authority of the Solicitor General to actually

make an announcement and somehow create more confusion and more

uncertainty than has ever existed before.

You know, Mr. Speaker, a line that wasn’t redacted from the report

says: “Policing effectiveness and public confidence are in a precarious

state in B.C.” That line in there perhaps reflects the fact that we’ve

got a former Attorney General, now Premier, who sits there and who has

authored a book on how to actually sue the police.

When we have a report that’s gone to mayor and council with 80

percent redacted and this Solicitor General gets up and says he knows

better than those elected, I think he can understand why there’s some

confusion and uncertainty on this matter in Surrey.

How much longer will this Premier force the people of Surrey to

tolerate his chaos and uncertainty that is now jeopardizing public

safety?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again I’m reminded how the opposition quite often don’t like

to…. They like to pick and choose lines and put quotation marks. The

reality is that he should read the whole report, because it sets it

out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I never thought I would see a time when an opposition that

professes so much to care about public safety would say that we should

release the confidential staffing information from the RCMP so that the

bad guys know what’s going on.

[2:10 p.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will repeat for the hon. member that that is confidential

information that belongs to the RCMP. I do not have the authority to

release that information. If they want to, they can. I’d be quite

happy.

I will also tell the opposition this. My staff have already

reached out to the city of Surrey to set up a meeting with the council

in Surrey, the mayor and council and staff, where they can go through

the entire report unredacted.

The bottom line is this. This is about public safety not just in

Surrey but the province as a whole. We know it. The public knows it.

It’s too bad they don’t.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN

IN GOVERNMENT

CARE

A. Olsen: I never thought that I would see a time when a government that

professed to know exactly what was good for children in care when they

were in opposition missed the mark so entirely when they’re in

government.

Last week the official opposition raised serious concerns about

the Ministry of Children and Family Development, specifically the number

of children in care experiencing critical injuries and deaths. Just a

few days later a report came out showing that 470 children per month go

missing from the foster care system in our province. That number is

probably higher, but the Ministry of Children and Family Development

doesn’t keep good data to reflect it. Hundreds of kids are fleeing every

month because they feel isolated, vulnerable and traumatized.

Separating children from their families and their communities

traumatizes them. It’s only made worse by the so-called child welfare

system in this province, subjecting children to a revolving door of

social workers, foster parents and support. The biggest risk to them is

sexualized violence, and those kids are disproportionately Indigenous

girls.

My question is to the Premier. These kids are under his care. What

responsibility does he have for the children that go missing every

month?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. The injury or death of

any child is an absolute terrible tragedy. My heart goes out to anybody

impacted….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Shhh, Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Dean: Nothing is more important than the safety and the well-being of

the children and youth who are in our care. When a child or a youth in

care does go missing, we want them to receive the same response that a

caring parent would give.

The representative’s report contains some really solid, important

suggestions about how the ministry can strengthen its policies and

procedures, and we will be acting on those recommendations. At the same

time, work is already underway within the ministry to ensure that

placements meet the needs of children and youth who come into care,

increase that sense of belonging and cultural connection and make sure

that children and youth stay connected to their family, to their

community and to their culture.

Our goal is to support children and youth to remain safely with

their families and prevent them from entering the foster care system in

the first place, where possible.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: I would like to be able to take this government at their word. The

reality is when they’re talking about fulfilling the recommendations

from the RCY reports, they think that 10 percent, 15 percent is

something to take a victory lap about, but that is not. That’s leaving

85 percent of the recommendations unfulfilled.

“Report after report has documented the B.C. Liberals’ decisions

to abandon our most vulnerable children. The representative has shown us

that. And after each report, the Premier does two things: she blames

somebody else and then promises to do better. But it doesn’t get

better.” You know who said that? That was the former member from Mount

Pleasant, Melanie Mark, speaking of former Premier Christy Clark’s

government in 2017.

The B.C. NDP government uses, essentially, the same rhetoric:

we’re making progress, but there’s more work to do — fewest Indigenous

kids in care.

It’s true this government has made changes, but the reality is

just like under the previous government. We’ve heard this minister

complain about the hundreds of kids in care that are in danger every

month under this B.C. NDP government.

[2:15 p.m.]

MCFD removes kids from their families for their safety, but what’s

been demonstrated, government after government after government in this

province, is the province is not a good parent for those

children.

My question is to the Premier. Does he think that the kids in the

government’s care, under his watch, are safe?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. We’re absolutely

committed to making sure that all children and youth in our care are

safe, happy and healthy. We will make sure that they stay connected to

family, to community and to culture, because we know that that leads to

the best outcomes for them as well.

Work is underway in response to all of the recommendations that

the Representative for Children and Youth has made. We’re also

transforming the child welfare system. We’ve taken action for youth

transitioning from care. We’ve taken action with Bill 38, implementing

Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare. We’ve taken action in Budget

2023, with increased supports for youth in care and caregiver rate

increases.

Every single day we continue to care for children and youth and to

support them to thrive.

POLICE OFFICER STAFFING AND

FUNDING FOR POLICE

SERVICES

T. Stone: Well, on Friday, it was confirmed that under this NDP government,

a massive shortage of police officers in British Columbia has

dramatically risen over the past five years to the point that public

safety is now compromised.

Results matter. With a 9 percent hard vacancy rate here in British

Columbia, this province has a vacancy rate that’s more than double that

of the rest of the country. But instead of stepping up with money for

multiple cities, the Premier chose to cynically find $150 million to

play politics in Surrey.

What an insult to communities across the province, where B.C. has

the highest provincial vacancy rate for police officers anywhere in the

country. Outraged mayors and councillors from communities with municipal

police forces like Delta, Abbotsford and New Westminster are rightfully

demanding to know: what about them?

My question to the Premier is this. Since every police department

in this province needs additional funding, will the Premier stand up and

reveal how all municipalities across the province, regardless of which

policing model they have, can apply for additional funding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It’s interesting to

note that he says we have the most vacancies in the province. The

reality is that we have the largest RCMP detachment in the entire

country.

Vacancy issues have been on the issues of hard vacancies and soft

vacancies. Soft vacancies are those which are, for example, someone on

PTSD or on maternity leave. They occur in the provincial line, what’s

called the provincial business line, and the municipal business line,

which are paid for by municipalities.

At the same time, we have made it clear to the federal government

that the issue of vacancies in the RCMP is critical to public safety in

this province. For last year, 258 recruits from Depot in Regina were

received by the province of British Columbia. On any given year, about

900 go through. About 17 percent don’t make it. That has to deal with

such things as…. You’ve got to deal with retirements, the growth in the

population and the demand from communities right across this province

for increased policing.

This government has been working extremely closely with the RCMP

to deal with the situation of hard vacancies when it comes to the

provincial police line. That’s why we made the largest investment in

policing, in RCMP resources, in the history of this province — indeed,

of this country — to fill the 277 hard vacancies that will go to rural

British Columbia, small towns under 5,000 people and communities right

across this province — up in the Peace district, for example; in the

Oka­nagan, for example; and on the Island. This is the first

government to take that issue seriously.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

[2:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, the facts, actually, really do matter here. In British

Columbia, we have a 9 percent hard vacancy rate with the RCMP. Across

the rest of the country, it’s 4.3 percent. The last time I looked at

that math, that’s more than double the vacancy rate here in British

Columbia for RCMP than elsewhere in the country. That’s the

fact.

Now, let’s be clear. For communities with municipal police forces

like Delta or Abbotsford, there are zero new dollars for policing. The

infrastructure fund that the minister was, all over media over the

weekend, citing actually isn’t for policing. In fact, the Premier has

explicitly stated that it shouldn’t be used for operating

costs.

The empty announcement that the Solicitor General just referenced

with respect to RCMP policing, which was made last fall…. Well, that is

only for rural RCMP detachments in communities under 5,000. That’s not

for municipal police forces. And by the way, that program hasn’t made

any difference whatsoever.

Last but not least, this back-of-the-napkin $150 million

announcement last Friday is for one type of policing in only one

community in British Columbia.

Now, despite repeatedly claiming no provincial money would fund

this decision, clearly the Premier has cynically found millions to put

his thumb on the scale for just one policing model in Surrey. And if

that’s not enough, the Premier also cynically included a provision that

if Surrey chooses the RCMP, they can’t poach members from other police

forces. But if Surrey chooses the Surrey police force, no such rule

exists, so: “Go ahead and poach away from any police force you want

across British Columbia.”

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with public safety. Why

is this Premier cynically playing politics with public safety through

this litany of blatant double standards that has only resulted in four

years of uncertainty, confusion and, frankly, an enormous

mess?

Hon. M. Farnworth: All I can say, after listening to that question, is that the

number of factual errors in that question is unbelievable.

Let’s start with the money that’s for rural and small communities.

It does not only go to rural small communities. It goes to specialty

teams, such as traffic unit on the highway, which the mayor of Merritt

has asked to be re-established. It goes for such things as the

integrated child exploitation teams, to deal with the issues of child

exploitation. Those are areas it goes to.

In terms of the $72 million, the infrastructure money that the

member just said does not go for policing…. Where has he been? The first

thing the city of Surrey said they’re going to do when faced with a 19

percent tax increase: “We’re going to take that money to try and lower

the tax increase, because that will pay for the severance pay in our

return back to the RCMP.” Just another example of that member’s and that

side of the House’s misinformation.

Let’s also be clear on this. When it comes to the city of Surrey,

they are the largest detachment in the entire country. So a transition

back — which, by the way, was unanimously supported by the council of

Surrey in 2018; then in the ’22 election, they said: “No, we want to go

back” — will have a huge and significant impact on policing, on police

resources, on the very thing that the member is complaining

about.

That’s why the work done by my ministry, police experts, by the

way — I don’t know how much of a degree in policing that member has, but

not very much — determined….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The amount of work done into that report is based on exactly

what’s required for public safety in Surrey and the rest of the

province.

E. Sturko: Just for the sake of clarity and to have it put on the record,

this really shouldn’t have been a decision about transitioning back

because the police transition hasn’t taken place. The RCMP are still the

police of jurisdiction in Surrey.

With resourcing in this province, the Premier and his NDP

government haven’t funded the spaces. They didn’t bring in the

resources, and now they’ve created yet another crisis of public safety.

The shortage of police officers reflects the decisions of this NDP

government over the last six years. They’re responsible for B.C. being

double the national vacancy rate.

[2:25 p.m.]

I can say from personal experience that in 2018 and ’19, the B.C.

RCMP faced such critical underfunding from this government that training

and travel for professional development were cut. Who did these cuts

come from but this Solicitor General and the former Attorney General,

who now sits as Premier?

These cuts were a direct result of the NDP government’s

insufficient funding to the RCMP. As former deputy commissioner Jennifer

Strachan stated at the time, “Simply put, we can’t spend more than we’re

given. “

My question: when is the Premier going to offer more than just

empty words and actually address the issues caused by the failure of his

government over the past six years?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I will point out that this government has given the RCMP

significant resources and tools that they have asked for so they can be

far more effective here in British Columbia since we formed government

than occurred under the previous government, whether it was putting in

place the firearms forensic lab they wanted, whether it was putting in

place the witness protection program that was wanted, whether it was

putting in place search teams that were placed in communities such as

Terrace and Kamloops and Kelowna and Prince George and, at the same

time, working with the RCMP to get a full understanding of the vacancy

patterns that occur in this province.

One of the challenges the opposition doesn’t seem to understand is

that it’s what comes out of the Depot in Regina. It is not the province

that trains those cadets. It is the Depot in Regina. That is done by the

federal government.

We have seen a decline in interest in going to the Depot as a

cadet. There have been changes, of course, which can help in terms of

the salary component, but the reality is this. When all British Columbia

gets is 258 recruits, that puts enormous pressure on the province in

terms of the staffing levels right across the province. It doesn’t

matter whether it’s the provincial business line or the municipal

business line, where it’s municipalities that will say

here’s….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, the plan that’s in place ensures that that is not the case

and is properly superintended.

The bottom line is this. It is this government that made the

largest investment in RCMP resources in the history of this province by

wanting to hire 277 RCMP officers to fill the hard vacancies on the

provincial business line.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL

CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS

AND

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

H. Yao: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills on Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Amendment

Act, 2023.

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

Motion approved.

H. Yao: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

H. Yao: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make a few brief

statements.

Before I start, I want to thank all the committee members,

especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Vancouver-Langara. I also

want to take a moment to thank the staff: Jennifer Arril, Clerk of

Committees, and Suzie Seo, Law Clerk and Parliamentary

Counsel.

I thank you, Vancouver Foundation, for sending the representative

and taking time out of a busy

schedule to present to the

committee.

The Vancouver Foundation works with individuals, charities and

businesses to establish endowment funds. The income from this endowment

is distributed to charities across B.C. Bill Pr401, intituled Vancouver

Foundation Amendment Act, 2023, seeks an amendment related to the

foundation’s ability to distribute funds to charities and not-for-profit

organizations.

[2:30 p.m.]

Specifically, the bill proposes to amend the definition of

“reserve amount.” The current definition provides that financial data

from 2008 is to be used to calculate a reserve amount. The amount will

be changed to financial data as of December 31 of the immediately

preceding fiscal year.

The bill was introduced and read a first time on April 5, 2023. It

then stood referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary

Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

On April 26, the committee met and considered the proposed private

bill and asked questions of representatives of Vancouver Foundation. The

committee agreed to recommend to this House that the bill proceed as

presented.

M. Lee: I wanted to add to the comments from the Chair of this committee,

the member from Richmond South Centre, just to say that I appreciate the

work of the Vancouver Foundation, Mr. Kevin McCort and others in the

leadership team, as they presented to support this private

bill.

I recognize the work of the committee and the members in reviewing

that, with the support of the Clerk and her staff team as

well.

It’s an important amendment that supports the financial footing of

the foundation, going forward, in administering its assets and financial

status. I think this is a good use of the committee, in its review of

private bills of this nature.

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

Motion approved.

H. Yao: I’ll just thank you, hon. Speaker.

I would also like to seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Petitions

H. Yao: I would like to present a petition from 671 concerned citizens who

call upon the Ministry of Health to address the critical issue of a “severe

shortage of sleep medicine facilities and the need for Cantonese- and

Mandarin-speaking specialists in the Lower Mainland.”

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call debate on the Committee of Supply, Ministry of

Finance.

In Committee A, I call continued debate of Committee of Supply for the

Ministry of Health. Once that’s complete, the Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General will begin.

In Committee C, starting at 3 p.m., I call continued debate of Committee

of Supply for the Ministry of Attorney General.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

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

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to the introduce staff with me. As the member can

imagine, I’ll have a few staff coming and going throughout the day. With

me right now are Heather Wood, deputy minister; Tiffany Ma, chair of the

Treasury Board; Renée Mounteney and Steve Hawkshaw, both

ADMs.

P. Milobar: Thanks to the minister and her staff. I know I had given the

minister a tentative

schedule on how we were hoping to slot in things

around Columbia Basin Trust and gender equity. It’s looking like

Columbia Basin Trust will be tomorrow.

The Third Party will be tomorrow, and then gender equity was going

to start right away, but then there was something going on in a

different chamber that the critic had to be at. I’m trying to juggle

that, because the other chamber now is apparently not starting until

three. I will ask some of my other questions, and we’ll see if we get to

gender equity today or not.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide for us…. Obviously,

there was a cabinet shuffle well into the budget process this year when

this minister took over the reins of the ministry. I’m just trying to

get a sense of the timelines. How hard-baked was the budget already when

the minister took over? What were the timelines of submissions and final

approvals for what was going to make the cut, on the revenue side as

well as the expense side?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify the process — I respect that the member hasn’t

been in a cabinet process before when it comes to budget — what happens

is the process actually starts in the spring prior to the budget being

presented.

I, as a member of Treasury Board and a cabinet minister, was part

of those discussions, as was our cabinet. We had a number of cabinet

retreats where we talked about the priorities. The Premier, who was the

Attorney General at the time, was also involved in those

discussions.

Once we were both…. Once he became the new Premier and I became

the new minister, we met, and we established our mutual priorities — how

things were moving forward with the budget process. We looked at: were

there going to be any new initiatives — or maybe tweak some initiatives?

We made sure that ministries would have anything that needed to be done,

done within the time frame because the budget was a hard date. We were

not going to miss that hard date.

It was a very comprehensive process gone through by everybody

involved to come up with the budget that we presented in February of

this year.

P. Milobar: I appreciate the process, and that was explained to me by your

predecessor as well.

I guess what I’m trying to get at, though, is with the new Premier

coming in, you have a new budget that will be presented admittedly being

worked on. But ultimately the Minister of Finance, as somewhat the final

oversight of the budget document itself, is typically the one that has

the final yes or no in terms of once cabinet’s set a

direction.

[2:45 p.m.]

And the minister pushes back and says no, we’re not…. We shouldn’t

be going that way for various fiscal reasons or not, as well as the head

of Treasury Board.

Was it then the overall direction of the Minister of Finance

having much more say, or was it the Premier’s office, the new Premier’s

office, that decided on some of the larger items within the budget and

supplemental spending that we saw?

Hon. K. Conroy: It was a mutual collaboration.

P. Milobar: We had $2.715 billion of supplemental estimates that, if that

money hadn’t been flown out the door as quickly as it was, would have

gone to pay down provincial debt. But when we were inquiring with the

various ministers responsible for their various pots of money that they

were spending, we were getting a bit of a mixed bag of answers as to who

directed them to spend the money.

I’ll give the minister an example. When I questioned the Minister

of Transportation about the $500 million for B.C. Ferries, he made it

very clear it was the Premier’s office that directed him. He had $500

million that…. In fact, B.C. Ferries hadn’t asked for anything, and he

was told: “You’ve got $500 million to go give to B.C.

Ferries.”

Can the minister maybe shine some light on which of the $2.715

billion of supplemental spending she specifically wanted to see happen

and which was specifically the Premier that wanted to see

happen?

The Chair: If I might, Member, I’m not sure that is in order. We are here

discussing the estimates for the Ministry of Finance and not the

supplemental estimates. That would have been a question which I

believe would have been more appropriate in that process.

P. Milobar: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. We don’t have the opportunity in

supplemental estimates to ask the overarching questions. In fact, the

$2.715 billion does show up in various governmental documents as well.

It’s pretty hard to talk about….

The Chair: Sorry, it’s just not in the vote that we’re here discussing

today.

P. Milobar: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the Minister of Finance

is responsible for the budget book. This has a direct implication to the

overall borrowing and debt servicing that I will be getting into. But

it’s going to be a very long day if every single question we ask is met

with this. I don’t know how else we ask budget questions without talking

about spending.

The Chair: We are here on Vote 26, which is the discussion that we’re

having. But at this point, if there’s a question around Vote 26, I’d

say that’s the appropriate time to ask it, which is about the

$338.869 million granted to defray the expenses of the Ministry of

Finance.

P. Milobar: I don’t think I’ve ever heard this, Mr. Chair. I don’t know how as

opposition, frankly…. I’m not challenging the Chair; I’m asking for

direction from the Chair that we’ve never had before.

We have never been told — let alone on question No. 2 of the

budget estimates for the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the

provincial treasury — that a question around spending that directly

impacts the debt and the debt servicing we are going to have in this

budget, which she is directly responsible for as the minister, is not in

line with budget estimates. Considering the breadth of questions that

get asked by every other minister during budget estimates, let alone the

ministers that have referred those same questions back to this minister

to talk about tax policy, to talk about carbon taxation, to talk about a

wide variety…. B.C. Assessment has been referred back to here. That does

not show up directly in Vote 26.

It’s pretty hard for an opposition to actually do their job with

the Minister of Finance in the finite time we have if I’m going to be

constrained on a $70 billion budget to asking questions about $338

million.

So I will ask the minister if she objects to answering questions

around the overall provincial budget.

The Chair: I’m working on the guidance of the Clerk’s staff, Member. I’m

not trying to get in the way of questions. If the member can ask his

questions in connection to the ministry, then that would be helpful,

and I appreciate the answer.

We’ll proceed with the next question. Thank you,

Member.

[2:50 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Can the minister explain then why I’ve been asked to ask questions

strictly on $338 million when, on page 10 on the budget estimates book,

the total appropriation for the Minster of Finance is $1.5

billion?

The Chair: Sorry, Member. If you want to ask about the estimates, that’s

appropriate. The question had been about supplementary estimates,

which have already been voted on in this chamber.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: In reference to the member’s questions, ministry operations is

$338.869 million. All the other pieces that are in the budget that

contribute to the $1.5 billion that the member referenced, those being

government communications and public engagement, B.C. Public Service

Agency, benefits and other employment costs, the housing priority

initiatives special account, the insurance and risk management account,

the long-term disability fund special account, transfer from ministry

operations vote, the provincial home acquisition wind up special

account, Land Tax Deferment Act. Those are all other votes,

whereas the

Ministry of Finance is Vote 26.

P. Milobar: Well, I guess we’ll get further guidance, but typically a budget

is a three-year fiscal plan. I’m assuming that I can ask questions about

all three years in the plan. Otherwise, it’s going to be a pretty short

session if I can only ask about spending in year 1, when most things are

three years’ spending.

I guess I’ll ask the minister this. Did the decision around

spending $2.715 billion of supplemental dollars in supplemental

estimates impact the forward-looking debt projections and debt borrowing

costs within this budget? In other words, instead of reducing debt by

$2.715 billion, which would be reflected in this budget book that we’re

supposed to be having estimates about, would that have changed those

numbers, especially materially, given that it was $2.715

billion?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: What we had, just to be clear with the member, are unexpected

revenue improvements that we found out in Q3, so the debt metrics

presented in Budget 2023 are lower than in Budget 2022 in each of the

year’s plan moving forward. So our debt goes down each of the years

moving forward.

And yes, if we had not put that $2.7 billion into supplementary

estimates, it would have, potentially, been used to pay down the debt.

But it was decided after mutual consultation with the Premier and others

to support people, to support communities, to support First Nations,

moving forward in a way that, we feel, overall was a balanced

approach.

That was a good way to ensure we were supporting people in this

province when they needed it but, at the same time, knowing that our

debt is balanced. Our interest bite is very low. We have one of the

lowest in Canada. We have one of the best economies in Canada, so we

know that we were moving in the right direction.

P. Milobar: Well, it wouldn’t “possibly lower.” It would, by law, have to go

against the debt. So it’s not a possible or may-or-may-not situation.

It’s either spent, or it has to go.

We also had other spending in March after this budget was

presented that would have impacted. That spending was all done through

contingencies. Can the minister confirm how much of the other

announcements that were outside — in the same time frame, being made,

but outside of the supplemental budget estimates time frame — would have

also chewed into any potential surplus that was spent?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Actually, the public accounts will show how the details of

contingencies are spent, and as in past practices, Treasury Board

authorized reallocation. Where there was room with the contingencies

vote. Again, that will come up in Public Accounts probably in the end of

July, August, when everything is finalized. As the Chair of Public

Accounts, you’ll be well aware of what the details will be.

P. Milobar: Is the minister saying that, with all of the flurry of

announcements, the minister is not able to tell us how much was spent

out of contingencies on the $500 million here and $118 million there

over the last month and a half of the year, as we headed to fiscal

year-end?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s a process for year-end that’s overseen by the office of

the comptroller general, working with ministries to finalize year-end

expenditures. Again, that will be released with the public accounts.

Year-end hasn’t closed yet. They go through three stages before they

finally close year-end.

They track Treasury Board authorizations, but the actual spending

isn’t finalized until the year-end adjustments are gone through by

Treasury Board, the ministry staff, Auditor General and

ministers.

P. Milobar: Can the minister advise the House when the Budget 2023 “StrongerBC

for everyone” budget document was sent to the King’s Printer?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just looking at time…. If the member would like, the staff are

looking for the exact date. We’ll get the exact date.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, it was in February. That was the month. I know that for

sure, but we’re just trying to look for the exact date. That’s as per

normal for budgets.

P. Milobar: The reason I asked the question is because the better part of half

an hour ago…. Granted, budget estimates, in my understanding, are

supposed to be about the three-year fiscal plan. The minister is

supposed to be responsible for this whole fiscal plan, as the Minister

of Finance.

Page 116 of that document actually has the $2.715 billion, the

supplemental dollars, in it. In fact, its heading is “2022-23

supplementary estimates.” It goes into the breakdown of the various

things that will be getting funded from it. It then goes on to

contingencies from Budget 2022, which is what I was just asking

questions around again.

The reason I’m asking those questions is that there was obviously

a decision made well before this went to the King’s Printer — even

though the announcements weren’t being made until March, officially, and

until we were in supplementary budget estimates in February, ahead of

the budget being released — to have our debt be higher than it needed to

be. So that’s what I’m trying to ascertain, that the $2.715 billion

would have been out of the calculation on debt costs because it wouldn’t

have been anticipated as a surplus moving forward.

Again, I guess my concern is that when we look at actual

contingencies, we have $4.8 billion: $2 billion in pandemic and recovery

and $2.8 billion allocated to general programs. I’m not aware of any of

the extra announcements that would have been classified as a pandemic

and recovery subvote, but certainly a great many of the announcements

would have been part of that $2.8 billion to general

programs.

Now, the reason I’m asking that question is that it starts to get

very convoluted near the end of any budget for the public, for

opposition, for everybody to figure out where the funding is coming

from. There was a lot of confusion whether this was extra money as per

the $2.715 billion of supplemental budgets or if it was actually coming

out of the contingencies.

We have large contingencies moving forward, so it’s important, I

think, that we get an understanding of the thought process and the

approval process that this minister takes with contingencies. Is the

minister saying, as the head of Treasury Board, that all of that

contingency spending that happened near the end of the year didn’t have

Treasury Board approval, that she wasn’t aware what the dollar figures

are?

I appreciate that she only has four staff here, but she’s got a

great many staff, I’ll guarantee, back in offices watching and helping

to communicate as well. I’m simply trying to find out: out of this $4.8

billion of contingencies, what was spent in those flurries? One

announcement in particular was $500 million. That wasn’t part of

supplemental estimates. So I’m just wondering if we could get a

reckoning of those as we move forward.

[3:20 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re well aware of what Treasury Board has authorized to be

spent, but we haven’t finalized the actual spending.

As I said, that will not be finished until everything is accounted

for and it goes to Public Accounts. That’s the normal process for all

government spending. Some things announced in March would have been

funded by base budget surpluses, and ministries would have had access to

contingencies, but they have to spend their base budget first, which is

also normal practice. Once they’ve used that, then they can look at

contingencies. Again, we have to make sure that we go through the due

process with Public Accounts to make sure that that is what has actually

been spent.

The member, I think, is referring to spending on expenses on page

116 of the budget: for instance, a $500 million increase for the rental

protection fund through the housing priority initiatives special

accounts. That is statutory spending. It’s not contingencies.

The $500 million increase to the B.C. affordability credit, a

one-time enhancement of the April payments through the climate action

tax credit — this is also statutory spending. It’s not contingencies

that the member is referring to.

P. Milobar: No, I was referring to the bottom third of the page, which is the

big, bold heading “2022-2023 supplementary estimates,” and then the next

three pages.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is the decision-making process

here around expenditures. If memory serves, the government had changed

the rules around deficit budgets. So there was no restriction on running

a deficit budget, as we saw in this budget of $4.2 billion or $4.3

billion deficit, as projected.

The concerns around the supplementary estimates spending, and even

some of the contingency spending, was the rush to get it out the door

and off the government books and the concern and the confusion. There

was confusion around: did B.C. Ferries even ask for half a billion

dollars or not? No, they didn’t. What was it going to be used for? No

one was really quite sure.

The $1 billion for municipalities — could it be used for

operations? Could it be used for policing? Yes, no. Answers were

different from the Premier to the minister responsible.

The Agriculture Minister and $111 million — she wasn’t sure which

two agencies were going to actually be receiving the $111

million.

Given that the government could have run a deficit and given that

this made it in the budget book, there was obviously a thoughtful

process well in advance to do these issues. Now, I’m not taking issue

with the specific items, but why was there not thought given to having

proper safeguards in place for the release of these funds, knowing that

if they weren’t spent by year-end, it would go against debt?

You could run a slightly larger deficit in this budget book and

accomplish the same things with different safeguards in place and clear

direction for everybody involved of what was actually happening with the

dollars, instead of the rush for $2.715 billion out the door with no

clear understanding of what types of protections were going to be in

place for a wide range of these expenditures.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

That’s, I guess, tied in with the concerns. We heard that from

S&P, with the credit downgrade — about the shovelling of money off

the back of a truck without proper safeguards in place, without clear

criteria, without clear deliverables attached to it. Huge sums of

money.

If you look at B.C. Ferries…. B.C. Ferries normally gets about

$207 million a year from the government for its operations. The

supplemental estimates would have pro­vided an extra $125 million

a year, a massive swing to their finances out of government. Agriculture

is normally $107 million a year — their total budget. They had $111

million extra just in supplemental estimates. A massive swing to the

spending that those ministries typically do or don’t do and those

agencies typically have access to or not, in a very short time frame.

That was reflected in the credit downgrade in the commentary by

S&P.

[3:30 p.m.]

Was there not any consideration given by the minister and the

Premier to still accomplish things but just do it in a timeline that

would actually provide those types of assurances to the public, to the

bond-rating agencies, to other people out there — ultimately the

taxpayers; it is their money that’s going out the door — so that there

would actually be clear, understandable deliverables and oversight on

things like $2.715 billion worth of spending being done very

quickly?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: In regard to the member’s comments, I want to say that proper

safeguards were taken, as has always been done with budgets.

The member made some comments about S&P, very specific. I want

to say what the S&P…. When they made their comments, they were very

specific. They said that although tax-supported debt will increase to

about 160 percent of operating revenue by 2026, it will remain below

that of other Canadian provinces.

They went on to say that the province has considerable economic

strength, such as its position on the west coast of Canada and its

proximity to Asian markets, as well as large natural resource assets. We

expect that the economy will remain well diversified. Key sectors

include forestry, mining, natural gas, financial and real estate

services, construction and manufacturing. In addition, B.C. has a large

public sector, consisting of government, universities and hospitals. So

they had some positive things to say.

The other thing they said is that our debt will remain below that

of other Canadian provinces. It’s interesting. The member never

mentioned Fitch. Fitch confirmed our AA-plus rating and stable outlook.

They said that the province remains positioned for strong growth and has

a history of quickly addressing fiscal challenges. They went on to say

that despite near-term macroeconomic risks, economic and fiscal

performance in British Columbia will remain solid over the longer

term.

One that the member failed to mention was just this morning. DBRS

Morningstar confirmed our credit rating at AA high with a stable trend.

They said that the rating confirmations reflect the underlying strength

and diversity of the province’s economy, its disciplined management

practices and strong balance sheet. They said that the province’s

prudent track record of fiscal outperformance, strong balance sheet and

currently low debt burden lend stability to its credit profile and would

likely withstand any pressures rising from mounting economic headwinds,

and it goes on.

I think what’s really important to reference for the member is

that as a government, it wasn’t about paying down the debt or supporting

people. We chose a balanced approach, an approach where we feel we will

be paying down some of that debt. But we also are going to invest in

people. That is the reason that we spent dollars on making sure we were

investing in people.

As the member said, he doesn’t have any disagreement with any of

the spending that was done, because people are very pleased to be

getting that funding. It does help people with a lot of issues in the

province. That’s what we decided to do. People have been fine with that,

as the member himself has even said. We will continue to have strong

debt metrics, as I’ve already stated.

P. Milobar: I said I didn’t have any problem with the concept of what was

being supported. If I were just to repeat all the quotes, I guess we

wouldn’t really need an opposition or a government. We’d all be just

reading everything out.

The reality is, though, that S&P did have concerns. The

province’s commitment to fiscal discipline has waned. The province is

materially increasing its spending, while economic growth is

slowing.

Now, this is on the backdrop of a $4.2 billion deficit. Typically,

governments run deficits when revenues are in short supply. This

government has no problems, it seems, finding ways to tax and generate

tax revenues without making any downward adjustments. I’ll get to those

areas later on in estimates.

[3:40 p.m.]

I guess just one question based on all of this and the fact that

we have that $4.2 billion deficit looming over us. Can the minister say

what the total cost increase…? There are about 128,000 more public

sector employees now than when this government took office. We have the

new agreement in place as well.

Structurally within the budget, how much extra per year are

staffing costs, labour costs, to the province of British Columbia with

all of the agreements that have been signed, all the extra hiring that

has happened? What is that dollar figure? Is it $5 million? Is it $7

billion? Is it $12 billion annually? How much extra, within this budget,

is now being spent on the public service?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The estimated total cost for the wage mandate this year is $5.4

billion. That’s for the total public service. That’s not just for

ministries. That also includes health care, nurses, teachers, other

costs, in that sense.

We don’t have the incremental numbers handy, but we will get those

for the member.

P. Milobar: No. I was more interested in the global numbers. So thanks for

that.

Under the previous Premier, there had been a commitment of

returning to balance. The reason I asked that question is…. That’s a

baked-in number. So we start to get into that operational side, of the

structural strength of the budget and deficit, or not, based on some

costs that are pretty hard baked in. That starts to make it a lot more

difficult and starts to provide a lot less flexibility moving forward if

the government is trying to actually get out of deficit

spending.

Now, the previous Premier had made a commitment that, by ’27-28,

we would be returned to a balanced budget by approximately then. That

was in the backdrop of unknowns around COVID. As we all saw, the

projections around job loss and things across Canada around COVID were

dramatically not what people were expecting.

That’s why we saw this massive 21-month delay in the tax revenues

reconciliation from the federal government coming forward, not just in

B.C. but pretty much across the country. I recognize that 21-month delay

is just a standard reconciliation month time lag. We’ll have the same

thing this year and the same thing…. The numbers can always change. You

always hope that they’re a bit to the good compared to what you

projected.

The bottom line is…. Everyone was projecting a much more

significant hit to tax revenues, based on what was going on with COVID,

21 months previous to that. It’s helped result in about a $12 billion

swing in the finances of the province this last fiscal and heading into

this year.

Again, the previous Premier was projecting a return to a balanced

budget, actually, by ’27-28. Is there a target date that this minister

and this Premier have to actually return us back, out of deficit

spending and back to break even or better?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I will say that early on in the pandemic, the previous Premier, as

the member noted, made a projection to returning to balance, but I think

that he was very clear that it was based on an economy that would

recover. It was definitely a projection; I wouldn’t say it was a

commitment.

What he made a commitment to, and what we’re making a commitment

to, are declining deficits. We continue to project declining deficits in

this budget, and over the three-year track of the budgets, we are

projecting an economic slowdown — as is every jurisdiction across

Canada, including the federal, the provinces and globally. That will

have an impact on revenues.

We are showing prudence over the next three years, and we know

that B.C. typically outperforms fiscal projections. We have been doing

that since 2017, and credit ratings are saying that too, recognizing

that we are prudent and that we build on our prudence to reflect the

fiscal direction we’re moving in.

I really don’t believe that it’s the time to make cuts to

services, to make cuts to the services that people depend on, the

programs that people depend on. I think that taking that balanced

approach that we have been taking — showing that we’re going to have

declining deficits but also maintaining services for people — is

critically important.

That’s my philosophy. That’s what I’m going to continue to move

forward with. That’s what I have support from the Premier on to move

forward with. We feel that we are moving in the right direction. We know

that, by the interest we’re getting from investors across the country,

and in other countries as well.

[3:55 p.m.]

The very positive response we’re getting to our budget is because

of that prudence that we’re showing, while at the same time showing that

we can invest in people and not make cuts to those services that people

need.

P. Milobar: I don’t believe I’ve once asked the minister about what should

have been cut or indicated that anything should have been cut. What I

did say was that there are record revenues coming in. This province has

never seen revenues coming in, in the way they have. That’s on the

backs…. There’s a tipping point.

The minister referenced a slowdown in the economy. When you start

going through where a lot of these revenue areas are, they’re right on

the edge, especially when you layer on inflation and when you layer on

the fact that B.C. is outpacing the rest of the country in inflation.

Month after month, when the rest of the country is seeing inflation

drop, B.C. is not seeing it drop at the same rate.

There’s a lot going on, and all of these factors start to layer

in. When you add 128,000 people to the public service — federally,

there’s concern because they added 81,000, over the same time frame, to

the federal government rolls, and as a province, we added an extra 50

percent on top of that — there’s a structural concern there.

When the S&P downgrades us, that should be a concern. The

minister doesn’t seem concerned about downgrades. The minister can

reference Fitch, but in 2021, Fitch actually downgraded B.C. as well.

The fact that they kept it stable right now, from where they downgraded

it under this NDP government once already, should also be of

concern.

Bond-rating agencies start to move at a similar pace and in a

similar direction. When one starts to go down and one is willing to just

hold steady at where their downgrade was, versus going back up, that

means they still have some underlying concerns that created that

downgrade in 2021 in the first place.

Based on our calculations, it appears that the taxpayer-supported

debt per person in B.C. will go up by around $2,000 this year, in this

budget. Can the minister confirm that number?

[4:00 p.m. - 4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The taxpayer debt per capita is in­creasing by $1,903. Just

for the record, the record revenues that we got were due to one-time

personal income tax from 2021, the adjustment there. The resource

revenue from 2022 — commodity prices were significantly higher. They

surged more than anybody would have expected, primarily due to COVID, I

think. It was very welcome, but it’s not permanent. They’re not

permanent gains that are going to be ongoing.

We recognize we’re entering into a period of slowdown, and that’s

why we have taken very prudent matters when we’re doing our budget

consultation, doing the work we’re doing around our budget. Because of

that prudence, that is why bond agencies have looked at us very

favourably, for the most part. We had a triple-A rating during

COVID.

We continue to be the highest-rated province in the country,

including against Canada. We still have the highest-rated from all the

bonding credit agencies to date and continue, because of the work that

we’re doing, the fact that we are very balanced in our

approach.

In answer to the member’s earlier question, the date of the budget

and fiscal plan. It was submitted to print to the King’s Printer in

proof on February 21. It was approved by Treasury Board on the 22nd, and

then printed on the 23rd of February.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m sure that every taxpayer in the province is thrilled to

know that it’s not $2,000 per capita that debt has gone up. It’s only

$1,903. That $97 savings, I’m sure, will bring them relief.

I appreciate the accuracy of the number, given that this is budget

estimates, but I think the overall intent of the question was to get

that order of magnitude, which means that I’ll take it that the

calculations that we’ve done that show that it’s an additional $5,625

per capita by the end of the fiscal plan would be in the neighbourhood.

It might be $5,619 instead of 25. But I think the idea is there for the

minister.

[4:10 p.m.]

I understand where the extra revenues came from. There were also

extra-large levels of corporate income tax that came in as well. But

again, I guess the concern that we’re having in this budget and the

budget estimates for ’23-24…. It still shows very strong taxation

revenues, at almost $78 billion, yet a large reason that we still wind

up with a deficit is because expenses have jumped from $74 billion last

year to well over $80 billion this year.

When you tie in…. When the minister talks about cutting services,

when you look at that jump in expenses of around $5 billion — actually,

it’s about $5.4 billion — and you hear that the increase to the public

sector is $5.4 billion, it starts to connect in, in terms of concerns

around structural deficits and in terms around job growth in government

outpacing job growth in the private sector, which means there is a

concern, as we’ve seen with the modelling, around the stability of our

economy moving forward. Given that there was a large reliance on

corporate income taxes, on personal income taxes, which means someone’s

employed, that starts to become a problem.

I guess the question, really, to the minister is…. Given the level

of per-capita debt that we are going to see grow over the length of this

service plan, given that the revenues are still ever increasing, yet the

deficits are not dropping by the same level…. I’ll give an example. In

the very next year of this plan, revenue goes up by another $2 billion.

Yet the deficit only drops by $500 million. That’s with even less

contingencies in it than this year.

The revenue in year 3 goes up by $5 billion over this year. The

deficit’s still only $1 billion less than this year’s is slated to be.

Again, I guess the question to the minister is: how serious is this

government in trying to meaningfully get back to a balance sheet…? The

minister keeps saying a balanced approach, but there’s nothing balanced

on this balance sheet. It’s in deficit. So what is the long-term plan of

this government to truly get back to break-even budgeting?

I get the minister’s answer previous that said: “We’ve always been

cautious in our estimates.” Previous governments were as well, but we

never saw the wild swings like we’ve seen over the last few years with

this government. That is the concern out there, that the modelling is

this…. We’re going to be negative, and then — woo — we’re way to the

good. What we get as a result is this massive amount of year-end

spending that’s being rushed out the door without a whole lot of extra

oversight.

Again, is there an actual plan by this government to get back to

break-even or even a surplus on the actual books, given that the

revenues are increasing faster than the drop in the deficit is slated to

go?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just wanted to clarify. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to talk

about swings during the pandemic when every jurisdiction across the

country was dealing with swings and struggling to project expenses and

revenue. It was a difficult time, so I think it’s a bit disingenuous on

the member’s part to focus on that.

[4:20 p.m.]

I also want to talk a bit about the debt per capita that he was

talking about. The debt is driven by expenses, but also by capital and,

in our case, significantly by capital. So we inherited, I would say, an

extreme deficit when it came to capital in this province. We know we

need to build.

We are building hospitals. We are investing in long-term care. We

are investing in schools, in housing. There is an incredible deficit of

housing in this province, and we are trying to make up the difference

and trying to do what needs to be done so people have housing. And

roads. I mean, the work that’s needed to be done on roads. This also

contributes to debt in this province.

I think when the member, former mayor, talks about what brings

taxpayer relief…. I just was thinking that I’ve been speaking with a lot

of mayors, councils, chambers of commerce. What brings them relief is

knowing that this government is there to support them when they need

that support. What brings them relief is knowing that they are getting

an affordability credit; that they know that they’re getting a B.C.

family benefit, that it’s getting an increase, a permanent increase;

that it’s helping them that they’re getting a carbon action tax

credit.

They know that these are supports that are coming to them,

because, as I’ve said, it’s not the time to make cuts to services in

order to balance a budget. I think it’s a time to be prudent. It’s a

time to ensure that our forecast allowance and our contingencies are

equitable to our deficit, because that’s what the credit agencies are

looking at — to say that we are, you know, ahead of the game when it

comes to other jurisdictions right across the country.

The member keeps raising it. I would ask the member: “What

services would he cut or his members cut?” You have to look across the

province. What services would get cut? What would they not build? Would

they not build those hospitals that need to be built in jurisdictions

right across the province? Would they not build those roads? That’s what

the debt we are incurring is about.

I think we’re well-positioned to be able to take care of that

debt. It’s a declining deficit every year we’re presenting in our

three-year budget, and that’s what we’re talking about: the three year

budget. They’re declining deficits, and we feel very comfortable with

the direction we’re moving in. It’s a balanced approach. It’s a prudent

approach, and it’s an approach that we’re getting significant support

on.

P. Milobar: Again, I’ll push back. Maybe we can just agree on this point, and

then we don’t have to keep taking up valuable time with it.

The Premier has said this in the past, when the budget first came

out. Others have said it in government. And whenever we’ve said, “Well,

who is some?” there is no attribution to any of the quotes. This side

has not been advocating for cuts. The government plays fast and loose

sometimes with comments in the media saying, “Some would say.” Then we

say: “Well, who’s some?” It’s not the opposition.

I’m sure if government had our leader on the record in some

interview saying what exactly he’d be cutting, they’d be not saying

“some” if history has shown anything over the last short

while.

There’s a big difference between what this government seems to

think is success, which is just spend, spend, spend with ever-worsening

results, and somehow the spend equates to success. And that’s a

fundamental difference, I think, we’re going to have all the way

through. The reality is that spending is up — the minister is right —

but the results are worse.

We have outstripped…. B.C. has seen nine straight months of

inflation outpacing the national average. Nine months in a row. We can

go

chapter and verse on what’s going on in the housing market and the

lack of affordability. We can go on about the crime services and what

we’re seeing on our streets and the disorder and the crime. The rents

skyrocketing in the most expensive jurisdiction in Canada to rent. Third

most expensive to buy a home in is in British Columbia. Those are not

results. A hospital project that was supposed to be $600 million is now

$1.45 billion. It’s $850 million over budget. Of course, capital

expenditures are up.

[4:25 p.m.]

Spending money doesn’t necessarily, automatically, equate to there

being a better result and a better outcome. That’s what the public would

like to see: the better result and a better outcome.

In terms of the economic policy of this government and this

minister, can the minister share with us if any of the work done that

this government had contracted by Prof. Mariana Mazzucato has helped

shape and form any of this fiscal plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: Ms. Mazzucato provided advice to shape the economic plan that was

developed by the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation

for 2022, not for 2023.

P. Milobar: So we paid a… Government paid a consultant $350,000 to develop an

economic plan. To quote the Government House Leader, he said: “Your

theories and approaches to economic development align with those of our

government.” And all of those economic development theories that

aligned, and approaches that aligned, with the government were only good

for 2022?

Was there no carryover to how the Minister of Finance and the

ministry would be figuring out economic growth or economic development

and how the government would see this province growing on an economic

basis moving forward? Surely that has to form some of the calculations

that the ministry would do as they’re trying to project what will happen

in British Columbia moving forward on the revenue side or the expenses

side as it pertains to the budget.

[4:30 p.m.]

Is the minister saying that we paid $350,000 for an economic

development theory and approach from a contractor that had a 12-month

shelf life and is no longer relevant?

Hon. K. Conroy: She wasn’t hired to help with this year’s budget. She was hired as

part of last year’s economic plan.

It sounds like the member has already had the discussion with the

minister who was responsible at the time. If he would like more

information on that, he should ask the questions to the Ministry of

Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m trying to find out from the minister how a government

economic plan doesn’t connect in with the Ministry of Finance trying to

project what the revenues will be and what our economic situation will

be as a province over the next three years of this fiscal plan. Surely

those must have to calculate in. Otherwise, I’m not sure how we would

project economic growth in the province or not.

Why it’s a concern is…. The same consultant left B.C. and went to

work for Argentina six months after the plan for here. In Argentina….

Their inflation rates surpassed 100 percent for the first time since the

’90s recently. So this is the same mindset that was working in B.C. and

provided a report that, one would think, would guide where we are

projecting and how we should be doing economic growth and development in

our province to help the provincial coffers. It sounds like we’ve walked

away from that, despite the $350,000 contract.

Again, the ministry did no work, no projections, no evaluations of

this economic development plan, which was provided to the government at

a cost of $350,000, to figure out what their projections, moving

forward, would be.

[4:35 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We use a macroeconomic model to forecast the economy. We use

information from other ministries we consult with, including JEDI. Any

changes to the economy flowing out of the economic plan, over time,

would come from JEDI in relation to our macroeconomic plan and how it

all fits in.

P. Milobar: Has the economic outlook changed at all for B.C. following the

tabling of the budget?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Since the timing of the economic forecast for Budget 2023, private

sector forecasts for B.C. real GDP growth have come down to 0.4 percent

from 0.5 percent for 2023 and 0.9 percent from 1.6 percent for

This is according to an average of six private sector forecasters.

It’s a subset of the Economic Forecast Council as of April 21. Reduced

private sector forecasts since Budget 2023 partially reflect

expectations of a slowdown occurring later in 2023, moving into next

year, and risks around recent stress in the global banking

sector.

The ministry is monitoring the economic situation, and, again, we

will provide an updated economic forecast in the first quarterly report.

We’re not changing our economic forecast, but we will provide

it.

It’s interesting that this morning Statistics Canada released its

preliminary estimates of annual real GDP by industry for provinces in

2022, and B.C.’s economy grew by 3.6 percent in 2022. In our budget, the

Ministry of Finance, we had estimated a 2.8 percent increase. It’s come

out, this morning, that we actually had a 3.6 percent increase in B.C.

real GDP in 2022. It’s good news. We are always monitoring this

constantly and make changes as required.

P. Milobar: In terms of the modelling used for this year’s budget, especially

on the natural resource revenue side, was there much modelling done on

what is going on in the forest industry? With things unfolding right

now, were they expected in terms of both job losses, mill closures,

curtailments, things of that nature? In terms of the revenue side of

what’s going to happen, obviously, there are some fibre issues as

well.

More around forecasting that was done, particularly on forestry

revenues in terms of where the government was projecting within their

budgetary measures for the industry itself to go in terms of those types

of job stability pieces or not.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We work with the Ministry of Forests when developing forecasts for

the budget. It takes all of the issues that the member raised into

consideration. We actually have numbers that…. Forest revenues are

projected to decrease 54.4 percent in ’23-24. That’s due to the impacts

of the lower Crown harvest and the volumes as well as the lower overall

stumpage rates and logging tax revenue, mainly reflecting an assumed

decrease in lumber prices from the high levels that we experienced in

Forest revenues are expected to increase from $846 million in

’23-24 to $932 million in ’25-26. That’s an average annual increase of

about 5.4 percent. This is mainly due to overall stumpage rates, higher

stumpage rates, particularly timber revenues reflecting an improved

outlook for timber prices. Things like the average annual lumber price

for SPF, spruce-pine-fir, 2-by-4s are projected to decline from $814 —

that’s U.S. dollars — per 1,000 board feet in 2022 to $500 in 2025.

That’s again because it was such a substantially higher cost in

[4:50 p.m.]

Overall harvest volumes are projected to decrease from 39 million

cubic metres in ’22-23 to 38 million cubic metres over the fiscal plan

period. The reduction in harvest volumes incorporates the impact of the

logging deferrals on old-growth forests and the reduced fibre

supply.

P. Milobar: It almost was like you were the former For­ests Minister or

something.

So that was part of the question, and it’s probably on me that I

didn’t phrase it, maybe, a little bit more succinctly. There’s that side

of the economic modelling, but in the previous fiscal plan, the revenues

that show up in this year’s fiscal plan were projected 12 months ago. So

in the previous year’s budget, the revenue forecast for this year’s

fiscal, which shows up in this year’s budget, is almost the exact same

as the previous year. That’s one of the few revenue projections that

actually has stayed that way.

The government was projecting the slowdown of revenues in the

forest sector for that 12 months. Nothing has changed. It’s not like

there was a change to an uptick. What was then part of that would have

been, obviously, an impact to the employment numbers and things of that

nature, which obviously ties directly into the economic well-being of

our smaller communities — mill towns, things of that nature — but also

as it relates to things around personal income taxes and all of

that.

Within all of those projections, what was the projected impact to

the labour side of forestry within these projections, given that is the

one projection that, 12 months later, seems to hold true in terms of

what was projected and what we’re actually seeing come forward in this

year’s budget?

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to take a brief recess, and we’ll keep getting the

answers. Just take a brief recess.

The Chair: This committee will be in recess for approximately five to ten

minutes, give or take, when members are back here, but the sooner,

the better.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. I will call this committee back to order.

We’re here with the Ministry of Finance estimates.

Hon. K. Conroy: Chair, thank you for that break — much needed.

Job losses are not explicitly in the revenue forecast. However,

the forest revenues are impacted by harvest volumes and partially

impacted by mill closures, prices and stumpage rates.

P. Milobar: Okay. Well, we couldn’t get a number when the minister was the

Minister of Forests. I thought I’d try to do an end-run to get a

projected job loss number out of the government, but I’ll just move on.

I’ll admit defeat; we’re not going to get that number out of

government.

Now we’ve seen nine straight months of inflation in B.C.,

outpacing the rest of the country. Certainly, that can’t be a

coincidence per se when it’s nine months in a row. There must be some

local B.C. determinants or factors that are making that happen. Have the

minister and the ministry done any assessment to determine what policy

actions of this government are contributing to inflation and would

continue on, moving forward?

[5:05 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Since late 2021, inflation rates have been above recent historical

averages. Most recently, our inflation rate year over year was 4.7

percent in March, which is actually down 6.2 percent from February.

Inflation has been driven by housing costs, energy and food prices,

supply disruptions, tight labour market conditions, in combination with

strong global and market demand. We recognize that.

That’s why our budget fiscal plan provides new targeted supports

for people that are hardest hit by the increased costs. This includes

all of our new tax credits and new spending measures to support, to help

families, renters, students, foster care families and those on income

disability with those kind of costs.

Our consumer price inflation in B.C. is forecast to continue

easing, with the growth of 3.9 percent in 2023, 2.5 percent in 2024, 2.2

percent in 2025 and then 2 percent annually in 2026 and 2027.

P. Milobar: I’ve probably just got one more question in this area, and then

I’ll be turning it over for gender equity, just in case you have other

staff watching that may come in. We’re done in the other chamber with

our gender equity critic now, if that makes sense, for probably likely

the rest of the day.

I appreciate the answer from the minister. But B.C., over the last

nine months, has outpaced the rest of the country. Regardless of what

the number in B.C. is, it’s been outpacing the national average for

inflation over the last nine months, which means we’re still higher than

what’s going on in the rest of the country. So really the question is

around: has the government taken a look at their policies within this

budget that would be helping to drive those inflationary pressures?

There’s help for some, but there’s an impact to all when inflation is

outpacing the rest of the country.

Certainly there are those sector-specific areas that would be a

little harder for government to impact. But there’s a whole breadth of

government policy, as well, that can be amended or looked at to help

ease inflationary pressures, especially if you’re an outlier. There must

be things going on in other provinces that are helping to drive their

inflation rate down. Again, has the ministry done an assessment to

determine what specific government policies and/or actions are

contributing to the fact that we are outpacing the national average nine

months in a row now on inflation?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I think the issue for British Columbia, compared to the rest of

the country, is housing. We recognize that, and that’s why we are

investing substantially in housing in this province, in affordability,

bringing in many initiatives that the Minister of Housing just announced

with our updated housing plan on how we can do just that to ensure that

we’re providing those supports.

I think it’s also important to acknowledge that the federal

government, the Bank of Canada, have more tools to combat inflation

directly. They raise the interest rate. But we have to look at what we

can do to help people every day in this province. I think what

we’ve….

It’s been fairly substantial, the things that we have done that

will help ordinary people with that. I know the child care program is

incredibly substantial when you’re looking at up to $900 a month in

people’s pockets.

[5:20 p.m.]

What I’m quick to tell people is that people are not investing

that offshore. They’re investing it right back in their local

communities, investing it right back in their small

businesses.

I think the B.C. family benefit is another one where people are

getting credits right back into their pocket and it goes right back into

the community.

Even the free prescription birth control — I can’t tell the member

how many people have approached me and said how much that’s benefiting

them. People said, “Oh, that’s hardly anything,” but they say that it’s

significant, and it’s going to add up, not just over a year but over a

lifetime. And that goes right back into the community. In fact, one

pharmacist told me: “Yeah, they come and get their free prescription

birth control, and then they go and buy something else in the store,

which is helping the store.”

What also is really important is the ministry has been very clear

that we need to provide those supports which help with affordability,

but at the same time, it doesn’t exacerbate inflation in our province.

So we’re balancing the bow so that we can make sure that we can do that

here in B.C.

R. Merrifield: We’re going to take a little bit of a different shift here now to

the gender equity and inclusion portfolio, which sits underneath the

Minister of Finance, and open with the question: could the Minister of

Finance please explain why Budget 2023, Budget 2023 fiscal plan and

Budget 2023 service plan make no mention of gender-based violence and no

mention of the gender-based vio­lence action plan?

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s so much information here. I was trying to narrow it all

down.

Actually, the service plan has a gender-based violence strategy.

It’s objective 3.1, bullet 2, under the key strat­egies. Also, we

are in discussions with the federal government as they are implementing

a national action plan, so that is helping.

Budget 2023 does include funding for many initiatives that advance

gender equity and support the prevention of gender-based violence. This

includes, of course, making prescription-free contraception free for all

B.C. residents, because we know how much of an issue it is for women in

the province, and $620 million in additional funding over three years

for the supportive housing fund to help build and operate more

supportive housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. A

lot of this is geared towards women.

There’s $1.7 billion in operating and capital funding over three

years to support building new homes through Building B.C. and B.C.

Housing programs including targeted investments for the community

housing fund and funding to help double the number of units created

through the Indigenous housing fund.

In partnership with the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, we’re

opening ten new Indigenous justice centres over the next two years to

provide free and culturally safe places that provide legal help, early

resolution program support and representation for Indigenous peoples. Of

course, that definitely helps women. We’re also providing more than $42

million of stable core funding to support over 400 victim services and

violence against women programs each year.

Additional annual funding of more than $10 million, starting in

’23-24, will be allocated to service providers to provide victim-centred

trauma-informed coordinated cross-sector support to survivors of sexual

assault. We feel that the development of a gender-based violence action

plan will continue to help inform our funding decisions, but we

definitely are funding programs to support women.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

There was a lot about what is coming in the future or where the

plan is going to. I just want to remind the minister…. Homes that are

not yet built or centres that are not yet open — I think the minister

mentioned there are 11 planned, if I got that correct on my notes here.

But of the justice centres that were promised, how many of those are

currently open?

Hon. K. Conroy: The exact numbers, we’d have to get from the Attorney General.

Just to clarify, the $10 million will provide stable funding for sexual

assault centres starting this year. That’s because a lot of those

services were cut prior to…. I think it was in 2015 that they were cut.

I can’t remember the exact year, but I definitely remember when it

happened. We are starting to reinstate all those programs and ensure

that those services are going to be there for women when they are

victims of violence.

R. Merrifield: Just to clarify from the minister, how does free contraception

relate to the gender-based violence action plan?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: One of the things we do know is that free contraception empowers

women to make decisions for themselves, and that’s what gender equality

is all about. You can’t eradicate gender-based violence if you don’t

have gender equality. We know that that’s the direction we want to move

in, and we want to support women. That’s one of the many things that

we’re doing. It’s just one thing that we’re doing to ensure that we have

that.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the explanation. Just to clarify, I

am all for free contraception. I’ve stood in this House many times and

actually really pressed government for the answer to that promise and

was very excited in 2020 when all three parties that are represented in

this House were actually on the same page on that front. So definitely

all for free contraception.

It’s just somewhat of a tenuous link between gender violence and

free contraception. My questions are very specific right now on the

gender-based violence action plan and how that’s being funded within

this ministry.

I will go to the housing and the transition housing that’s been

promised. I wasn’t clear on whether or not the minister was saying that

that was in direct response to the gender violence action plan. But if

we look at the number of transition houses or units that have been

provided and built versus the number that were promised in 2018, we’re

looking at a very small percentage in terms of what that number looks

like. I’ll dig that up exactly for you, because I don’t want to misquote

it on Hansard and forever be remembered as the

misquoter.

In all of these different situations, we’re looking at kind of the

drops in the buckets but not that funding that I’m asking about in terms

of the gender-based violence action plan. So could the minister give me

specific funding towards the gender-based violence action plan, instead

of just the other smatterings of things that we’re doing for women and

for gender equality but not necessarily directly related to the action

plan?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Gender-based violence all too often, unfortunately, impacts women,

girls and non-binary peo­ple with devastating and long-lasting

impacts. It disproportionately targets Indigenous women and girls, women

of colour, 2SLGBTQ women or people and those with disabilities. The

safety and well-being of all people depend on us taking action to help

end gender-based violence and making sure our province is

safer.

To that end, our government has taken an all of government

approach. That’s why I have referred to some of these other initiatives.

I think it’s important to acknowledge what we’re doing in housing. Yes,

some of them haven’t started yet, but some of them have. We are making

sure that there are those centres and the services for people so that

they can access them, especially for women that have faced violence and

need those services.

As I’ve said, it’s an all of government approach. We’re looking at

each other as ministers and how we can ensure that we have the supports

in place in those different ministries. Where we don’t have it, we’ve

announced funding so that we can get it. In the meantime, we are having

those discussions with the federal government to be part of that

national action plan against gender-based violence.

[5:45 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I wish I had as much

confidence about the all-hands-on-deck approach as what has been

communicated here just moments ago.

As we know, our statistics are through the roof. The minister and

I went through some of these statistics when talking about pay

transparency and pay equity.

In 2019, B.C. had the largest provincial increase in Canada in

family violence. That is not a statistic I want. We know that in 2020

and 2021, during the pandemic, those numbers skyrocketed, far exceeding

what they were previously.

We actually had a decrease from 2009 to 2016 in those same

statistics. It has only been since 2016 that we have been not just on a

steady trajectory upwards; we have been on a hockey stick curve. We are

talking about…. Upwards of 13 percent was our smallest year of an

increase. I agree. We need all hands on deck.

The minister mentions housing, housing that was promised in 2018.

We were promised over 1,500 units of transition housing. We were

re-promised that just recently, this last fall. I’ll remind the

minister. We only have 188 of that 1,500 completed. That is not success

in trying to combat gender-based violence.

The minister also mentioned the $10 million for sexual assault

centres, but the statistics that I’m giving are not just sexual

assaults. That’s all domestic violence and intimate partner violence,

which could be a range of different aspects.

In coming to a position of seeing a comprehensive combat to where

we’re at on domestic violence and intimate-partner violence numbers…. I

think that’s why the importance of having a plan and having a funded

plan of action actually propels this forward and gives a very

comprehensive and collaborative approach.

My next question will be around the same topic. I would just hope

that the minister could detail how much funding has been budgeted for

the training of police and Crown counsel and justices on gender-based

violence.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, it’s what I’ve said. It’s an all-of-government approach,

and we’re sort of an overarching ministry, but every minister is

responsible for the items they’re taking care of within their ministry,

because it’s, as I said, an overall government approach. For instance,

PSSG would be where the member would get information from specifically

on police. Crown counsel would be AG.

The member made some comments about some of the other things we’ve

done, and I just want to remind her of the many things that we have

done. She made a comment that it wasn’t fast enough, but it’s certainly

needed. We recognize that we’re going as fast as we can to make up for

the deficit that we inherited in 2017.

The introduction of the Intimate Images Protection Act to address

the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images…. The act is not a

budget item, so to speak, but it is going to do a lot to protect young

women. Women — period.

Improved educational and awareness programs in K to 12 and in

post-secondary. There has been significant work done by the

post-secondary ministry and in K to 12 to provide those educational and

awareness programs. There are mandatory sexualized violence and

misconduct policies now at every public post-secondary institution in

the province. We didn’t have that before.

There’s modernization of the Family Law Act and access to

protection orders, development of B.C. provincial policing standards on

sexual assault investigations.

Also, I think when we talk about empowering women, we’ve got to

remember that the historic investment in child care is about empowering

women to return to the workplace. Last year 75 percent of the people

that returned to the workplace were women, and that can be directly

attributed to the child care programs in this province, that they had

the support to return to work. That empowerment is another key factor in

addressing gender-based violence.

We are building hundreds of new transition and safe houses. Have

we got them all done yet? No, but the ones that we have got built have

been significant in supporting women in this province that need that

support. We’re building second-stage housing, another significant need,

affordable housing spaces for women. I mean, as I said, there was a

dearth of housing that was focused specifically on that. But we are

doing that, because we recognize that there wasn’t enough done, and we

want to make sure that there’s support for women to be able to access

that when they are either experiencing or at risk of experiencing

violence.

Can we do things quicker? Well, we’re doing things as quickly as

we can. I mean, we recognize, though, that we need to do this, and every

little bit we do moving forward is going to help someone to benefit by

the program so that if they have experienced violence or potentially

could experience violence, we’re making sure that we’ve got programs in

place. Can we do more? Yeah, and we are doing more.

[5:55 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I just want to remind

the minister that from 2009 to 2016, statistics on domestic violence

were actually going down. We were seeing a decrease in the number of

family vio­lence victims.

I understand that the minister would like to put all of this onto

past governments not doing enough, but suffice to say that this is an

issue that has started to escalate from 2016 on. These are promises not

made by the past government. These are promises made by this government

to actually deliver 1,500 units. That was promised in 2018. Of those, we

delivered 12 percent. That’s a failing grade. We’re five years into this

1,500 of transition.

I agree wholeheartedly with the minister on the fact that this is

a matter of life and death. People fleeing domestic violence don’t have

option B. They don’t have option C and oftentimes will end up homeless,

on the streets, further subjugated to all sorts of violence. I

absolutely agree. It’s a matter of life and death, which is why I am

pressing the minister on these issues to make sure that we actually move

forward.

I’m going to go back to something that the minister said on the

intimate images. That is, I want to ask a question on the administrative

tribunal that was to be set up as part of this new legislation and the

budget that’s associated with it. Could the minister just give me the

budgeted amount that’s located in the 2023 budget for the intimate

images tribunal?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The specific information the member is looking for, she’d have to

go to the Attorney General.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister. I guess I have different expectations for the

amount of accountability when a ministry is underneath a minister’s

purview.

The minister had acknowledged that that piece of legislation was

going to actually be part of reducing gender-based violence. If it truly

is part of that, would the minister not know what the budget was going

to be for the administrative tribunal that was going to be set up and

how that was going to enhance and reduce the amount of gender-based

violence that was happening?

I won’t ask for the minister to again ask me to go to the Attorney

General, but a whole-government approach really has to have somebody

coordinating. My