First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 17

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 6 — Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 8 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. S. Robinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Access to health care services in Kootenay East area

T. Shypitka

Work of CUPE members in Langley area

A. Mercier

Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society

K. Kirkpatrick

Project AIM and access to incontinence and menstrual products

K. Paddon

Tourism in Fraser Canyon corridor

J. Tegart

Vernon community response to COVID-19

H. Sandhu

Oral Questions

COVID-19 vaccination plan for seniors and small communities

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Opioid crisis and Mental Health and Addictions Ministry budget

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

COVID-19 impact and disaggregated data collection

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Mental health services for youth and safe care legislation

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Opioid crisis and prescription monitoring program

A. Wilkinson

Hon. A. Dix

Opioid crisis and mental health services for youth

S. Cadieux

Hon. J. Horgan

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson

Appointment of Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Election Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report on financial audit work for

2019-20

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Dean

Hon. S. Robinson

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

B. Stewart

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: P. Alexis.

Introductions by Members

A. Mercier: I’d like to introduce my constituency assistant, Jennifer Loftus. It’s

Jennifer’s 28th birthday today, and rather than taking the day off to relax,

she’s working hard in my constituency office, serving the people of

Langley.

Will the folks in this House, the members of this House, please join

me in wishing Jennifer a happy birthday.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Home Owner Grant Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Home Owner Grant Amend­ment

Act, 2021, which amends the Home Owner Grant Act. The primary

purpose of this bill is to enable the full centralization of the

homeowner grant program. This is the final step to ensure that the

province meets its commitment to centralize the program, as

announced in Budget 2020.

The province already administers the homeowner grant program

for rural areas, so it makes sense for the province to centralize

and streamline the program for all of B.C. We have listened to the

municipalities, who told us that administering the homeowner grant

program was a burden.

Centralization will make it faster and easier for

home­owners to apply. It also ensures that all B.C. homeowners

have equal access to a fully online application, as well as

phone-based support and quicker application processing. Most

importantly, it also means that applicants will receive the full

amount that they are eligible for.

The amendments also modernize the Home Owner Grant Act,

ensuring consistency with other legislation and providing more

enforcement tools to increase efficiency and recovery of amounts

owed to government.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: 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 6, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021, 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.

BILL 8 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amend­ment

Act, 2021. In November 2019, my predecessor, Minister James, announced

that the province would be moving to a single regulator of real estate

under the B.C. Financial Services Authority. Today I’m putting forward

amendments to the Real Estate Services Act to enable that

transition.

[10:10 a.m.]

This is a result of recommendations from a report the government

commissioned on the regulation of real estate. Those recommendations

were later echoed in an expert panel’s report on combatting money

laundering in B.C. real estate. Both reports noted the inefficiencies of

the existing co-regulator model, where the office of the superintendent

of real estate and the Real Estate Council of B.C. shared responsibility

for regulating real estate in the province.

The B.C. Financial Services Authority currently regulates

financial institutions, pensions and mortgage brokers. By making the CEO

of the authority the superintendent of real estate, we are working to

create a unified system, a system that allows experts across sectors to

work together, including opportunities to streamline investigations and

enforcement. This will increase the efficiency and, ultimately, the

consumer confidence in the regulation of these sectors.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: 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 8, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, 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.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN KOOTENAY EAST

AREA

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s great to be back in the

House.

As residents of the greatest country in the world, our health care

needs are protected under the Canada Health Act. The act sets out the

primary objective of Canadian health care policy, which is “to

facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or

other barriers.”

However, that is not truly the case across our beautiful province.

Not only does Kootenay East share the provincial border with Alberta,

but it shares health care needs as well. Calgary is but a couple of

hours’ drive for some folks in my riding, with no real geographical

barriers to mention. It’s also close enough for family support and

allows patients and loved ones to travel easily to and from work or

child care issues with limited expense.

That said, the access to Alberta from British Columbia has been

extinguished for many residents in Kootenay East and many other

jurisdictions in B.C. Critical procedures in Alberta, such as radiation

treatment for cancer, are being denied and relocated to places much

farther, such as Kelowna, Vancouver or even Victoria. These locations

represent such barriers that patients are actually cancelling treatments

due to these barriers.

Another example is that retinal surgery often involves the use of

intraocular gas, which makes it impossible to use air travel as a mode

of transport. This, in turn, makes getting to an alternative site for

tertiary ophthalmology care very difficult.

Now it appears that people with physical disabilities are being

impacted for the first time. In the past, Alberta physicians were able

to assist their patients with the completion of the PWD form. Our

poverty advocate has reached out to the office to let us know that this

is no longer the case. The PWD application can no longer be completed by

their Alberta physician.

This is not right in a true universal health care system. We need

to do better, yet this situation grows worse every day. In British

Columbia, we are all equal, and we all need equal access.

I ask that all members of this House support all British

Columbians in their right to access to health care without financial or

other barriers.

WORK OF CUPE MEMBERS

IN LANGLEY

AREA

A. Mercier: I’d like to take a moment to thank the hard-working women and men

of CUPE Locals 403 and 2058. They’re the folks working for the township

and city of Langley that have been critical to keeping our community

running. They’re the equipment operators, the tradespeople, the

arborists, the recreation workers and countless others that do the

necessary work that we all depend on.

They have benefited from strong leadership at both city and

township council as well as within their unions. In particular, Sara

Manchester and Jeff Culhane at Local 403 and Andrew Brown at Local 2058

have been paragons of modern, progressive leadership in the labour

movement.

[10:15 a.m.]

I’d like to take a moment and just highlight one of the programs

that’s performed by CUPE 403 members, and that’s Active Beyond the Bell.

Active Beyond the Bell typically runs for two hours after dismissal of

the gymnasium at local schools. Every month, it focuses on fundamental

movement skills and healthy lifestyle concepts, which can help your

child towards a healthy, active and confident life. Each day, it focuses

on fundamental movement skills, activity and nutrition. Activities are

included that introduce or practise these skills in a fun,

non-competitive environment. Daily happenings vary to allow for input

from the kids, free time and snacks.

Physical literacy is the ability to move confidently and

competently in a variety of ways on a variety of surfaces. Studies show

that children today are not gaining the basic skills to move confidently

and competently. Without these skills, children are less likely to

participate in sports as a child and even less likely to participate as

an adult.

This program is a perfect example of the work that the members of

CUPE 403 are doing to help improve our community and as a general

service to Langley.

KIWANIS NORTH SHORE HOUSING SOCIETY

K. Kirkpatrick: I’d like to acknowledge that our constituency rests on the

traditional unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples.

Rents on Vancouver’s North Shore are among the highest of the

Metro Vancouver municipalities. It’s the highest proportion of seniors

of all municipalities. Both West Vancouver and North Vancouver reported

zero percent available rental in 2018, and 70 percent of its workforce

does not live in the community.

I’d like to highlight the great work of Kiwanis North Shore

Housing Society, which has been providing affordable rental on the North

Shore for residents of low to moderate income for 70 years. Kiwanis has

a dedicated and energetic board of directors with a proven track record

of operating affordable housing projects. Kiwanis owns and operates 634

rental apartments in seven buildings on the North Shore. Kiwanis is

currently building an eighth building in the district of North

Vancouver, adding an additional 106 affordable units. All are rented

below market to low-income senior residents.

In 2019 the district of West Vancouver presented Kiwanis with a

Community Commitment award in recognition of its outstanding

contribution to the community. They acknowledged the enormous investment

in volunteer time to build and operate below-market rental accommodation

that has enabled seniors to live in and contribute to the quality of

life on the North Shore. In 2017 Kiwanis leased additional space to

operate an adult daycare centre with the goal now of finding permanent

space.

Organizations like Kiwanis cannot do this good work without the

support of its partners in B.C. Housing, VCH and the contributions from

the public. I’d like to acknowledge its hard-working board and staff and

thank them for the good work they do for our community.

PROJECT AIM AND

ACCESS TO INCONTINENCE

AND

MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS

K. Paddon: I rise today to recognize and share the work of a constituent in

Chilliwack-Kent inspired by a need in our community. Miel Bernstein is a

resident of Agassiz, B.C., and the founder of Project AIM, access to

incontinence and menstrual products. Miel first decided to take on

fundraising for these items late in 2020, after she became aware of many

in our community who struggle to afford these basic hygiene items.

Through her initiative, she has collected donated products, raised money

and established relationships to purchase these important products at

cost.

Community members, organizations and businesses across Chilliwack

and Chilliwack-Kent have supported and encouraged this project, as they

recognize that the cost of menstrual and incontinence products, the cost

of hygiene, dignity and access requires all of our support to ensure

equal access and availability. With this goal in mind, Mohamed Hasanine

and the Agassiz Remedy’sRx Pharmacy family support AIM by accepting

donations at their location and by selling these products to the project

at cost. Products collected or purchased by AIM have been distributed by

Agassiz-Harrison Community Services and Extra FARE as well as gender

counselling groups and local women’s shelters.

This is not a glamorous topic, but we know that period poverty is

real. As we approach International Women’s Day, this work is especially

topical, as we recognize the financial repercussions of gender in our

society as well as the reality that a lack of access to these hygiene

items can result in serious health issues, increased stigma and

limitations to social and economic participation.

[10:20 a.m.]

Please join me in thanking Miel Bernstein of Project AIM, Agassiz

Remedy’sRx Pharmacy and everyone donating and distributing these

products for the work they’re doing in recognition of this need, for

shining a light on this access issue and for the generosity they offer

our community.

I know our government and everyone in this House applauds the work

of Miel Bernstein.

TOURISM IN FRASER CANYON CORRIDOR

J. Tegart: It’s with great pleasure that I speak today about an exciting

project happening in my riding. That project has a goal to wake up the

Fraser Canyon.

The Fraser Canyon is a hidden gem of British Columbia — absolutely

spectacular views, incredible history and a highway corridor that was

devastated by the building of the Coquihalla.

Two years ago 40 people gathered in a room in Lytton to talk about

the challenges in the canyon. Everyone who needed to be there was in the

room, and a plan was made.

We are now nearing the end of the process to write the tourism

master plan for the Fraser Canyon. Everyone is still at the table.

Government agencies have been extremely cooperative, communities are

committed, and we are ready for action.

We’ve identified infrastructure projects like viewpoints, pullouts

and signage. Yale First Nation is planning a new campground at Alexandra

Bridge, and Pathways to Gold is working with government to stabilize the

old Alexandra Bridge for walking. Trails and viewing areas will also be

developed.

Boston Bar, a small community in the canyon, has received federal

funding of close to $2 million to refurbish their historic train

station. Trails throughout the corridor have been identified for parking

and signage development.

Kanaka Bar Band is developing a new rest stop which will encourage

food trucks and further development. And Lytton has identified projects

both in town and on the highway.

All this work being done is built around respect for the land,

sustainability and job creation. I can tell you, throughout the canyon

corridor, there is excitement in the air, and we would like to invite

everyone in this House to spend your staycation travelling through the

Fraser Canyon this year.

VERNON COMMUNITY

RESPONSE TO

COVID-19

H. Sandhu: I’m joining you from the unceded territory of the Okanagan Indian

Nations.

Today I rise in the House to recognize the solidarity shown by

organizations, businesses and the wonderful people of Vernon-Monashee

during COVID.

For example, at the beginning of this pandemic, Vernon became the

first community in B.C. to amalgamate its shelters for people

experiencing homelessness. Not only that. These shelters added physical

distancing pods. All this allowed for better care of the needs of our

most vulnerable citizens. This was done by Turning Points Collaborative

Society, a Vernon-based organization. Many communities followed their

lead.

Vernon and District Immigrant and Community Services Society also

for new Canadians and temporary foreign workers going virtually, by not

stopping the classes but switching to early online courses.

This spirit continues today in many ways. A local business owner,

David Scarlatescu, at the beginning of the pandemic, started providing

free lunches to seniors in need, and he continues this effort to this

day. These are perfect examples of coming together to support one

another during tough times.

COVID has brought the best and worst out in people, but it is

reassuring to know that we have more good than bad, which makes our

communities beautiful.

I would like to ask all the members of this House to please join

me to thank every individual from my riding for showing their strength,

resiliency and care to help.

Oral Questions

COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN

FOR SENIORS AND SMALL

COMMUNITIES

S. Bond: Well, we continue to hear stories of seniors, the frail elderly

and their families, who are concerned. They’re confused, and they’re

worried about getting their vaccination.

[10:25 a.m.]

Many of them have not left their homes. They have not been out in

their communities since the pandemic began, and now they are afraid that

they will need to travel to get their vaccination.

Yesterday we raised that very issue about the community of Hope.

We were relieved, and the mayor of Hope and his constituents were also

relieved that they would have a vaccination clinic in their community.

In fact, the Premier made a commitment: “I have every expectation that

the residents of Hope, particularly in phase 2, will not have to travel

to get immunized.” So that was good news, and it was a relief for the

residents of Hope.

Can the Premier confirm that he followed up on his promise and

that he gave clear direction to the health authorities across the

province that vaccination clinics will be located in communities all

across the province so that seniors will not have to travel to have

their vaccination?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. I did

follow up with the Minister of Health yesterday, after question period,

and it is clear that in phase 2, those who are unable to travel will not

be required to do so. The plan starts by going to independent living

facilities. It goes to those people who have home care already, people

known to the ministry, people known to the health authority, to get

their first shot in that phase 2 cohort.

As we move into phase 3 and phase 4, the largest

immu­nization program in Canadian history will be underway, and it

will require extraordinary efforts by volunteers, by members of the

Legislature, by people all across British Columbia. It’s my expectation

that those that are leading this extremely challenging file are going to

do everything they can to reduce anxiety.

Again, I just want to touch on the member’s premise, which was

that we’re all pretty frightened about all of this. Certainly, those who

have been in their homes for the past number of months want to hear

definitively that they will be safe going forward, and I can give that

assurance as we go into phase 2.

When we go from there, that’s going to require a whole bunch of

other work by a whole bunch of other people. I cannot guarantee, as the

member wants me to, that every community will have a vaccination centre,

but I can commit that those in phase 2, the particularly elderly and

frail, will have access in their community.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: I do appreciate the Premier’s response. Most seniors at home today

don’t know about phase 1 or phase 2 or phase 3 or anything else, for

that matter. What they are worried about is ensuring that they have an

opportunity to be vaccinated in their communities.

Yesterday the Premier made an explicit commitment: seniors “will

not have to travel to get immunized.” Well, another day and another

community.

I’m very surprised that the member for Delta North hasn’t actually

stood up and raised this issue — the very issue that Mayor George Harvie

raised, with exactly the same issue as Hope. In a letter that he made

public, Mayor Harvie points out that North Delta is currently not being

considered for a vaccination site. The letter goes on to outline that

they are willing to do whatever is necessary.

The Premier talks about people being willing to step up. Mayor

Harvie has said that his staff has searched the community. They’re

willing to do whatever is necessary. He said a vaccination site in North

Delta is essential. Here is the ask that the mayor has: “I would

respectfully ask that you consider a Delta site to serve this

population.”

Yesterday the Premier made a promise that seniors would be

vaccinated in their communities, so today will he ensure that the

residents of North Delta have a vaccination site for seniors, and

frankly, will he please give clear direction to health authorities so

that day after day we’re not bringing another community expressing

concerns and fears about their frail elderly citizens?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member said at the start of her question that seniors don’t

know the difference between phase 1, phase 2, phase 3, and I accept

that. But every member of this House should know the difference between

phase 1 and phase 2 and phase 3.

The official opposition was briefed thoroughly by the Minister of

Health, by the immunization team, with the express purpose

of…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: …reducing anxiety in communities.

Interjections.

[10:30 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Mr. Speaker, I’ll get to the point the member made, but I think

the

preamble is critical here. It is important that all of us work

together to explain to British Columbians an extremely complicated

situation — an extremely complicated situation that is happening not

just here in British Columbia, not just here in Canada, but indeed

around the world. So if our objective is to reduce anxiety, I suggest

that we collectively put our shoulder to the wheel and work

cooperatively to reduce anxiety.

With respect to the particular request by the mayor of Delta,

we’ll take that under consideration. But the member will also know that

if you live in North Delta, you are right beside Surrey. It is a

different community, but it is the same community for

commerce…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Come to order, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: …for shopping, for social interactions. Again, maybe a geography

lesson…. Perhaps a geography lesson would be in order here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. We’ll resume question period after you’re finished heckling

each other.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.

OPIOID CRISIS AND

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS

MINISTRY BUDGET

T. Halford: Today the coroner revealed 165 opioid deaths in January, the

largest number ever recorded in a month. That follows the heels of 2020

— which, we tragically saw, was the worst year ever.

I’m going to read a quote: “Why is our provincial government

unable to meet the needs of people and families desperate to find help

when it comes to the opioid addiction?” Those are the words of the

Premier in 2016, and, sadly, today they ring truer.

Can the Premier tell us why the budget for the Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions is the smallest in his government?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The calamity of the continued overdose crisis, combined with the

effects of the pandemic, are leading to increasingly heartbreaking loss

for people in British Columbia, and on behalf of the province and the

government, we extend our condolences to the families and friends of

those lost and our thanks to those working on the front line, working

very hard to save lives. It’s been a very hard year.

As the coroner pointed out in her report last month about the 2020

deaths, the effects of the pandemic border closure measures that have

led to increased toxicity of illicit street drugs, coupled with

increased isolation and more and more people using drugs alone,

especially as supervised consumption sites and other services had to

minimize their operations for safety reasons, have led to a terrible

combination. That is what we are fighting.

That my predecessor and this government brought in measures, as

the coroner acknowledged, that in 2019 led, for the first time since

2012, to a drop in the number of overdose deaths from illicit drugs,

does say to us that we must work even harder, that what we were doing….

And, in fact, in the first two months of 2020, before the pandemic hit,

also, overdose deaths had dropped.

Our government continues to be all hands in all ways, adding nurse

prescribers, expanding enormously access to safe supply, opening new

treatment and addiction beds. Just two weeks ago…. And, in fact, just in

two days, we are going to be announcing new youth treatment beds in

Kelowna in cooperation with Interior Health, a doubling of youth

treatment beds for the first time in B.C.’s history.

We know there is more to do, and we are determined to do

it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: I think the fact is this: the Premier’s office has a bigger budget

than the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. The Premier spends

more money on government advertising than he does on this ministry’s

budget. That is why critics are calling this a failure.

[10:35 a.m.]

The Premier said: “When someone needs supports, they can be stuck

on a wait-list. They should not be forced to navigate the yawning gaps

in B.C.’s treatment services. Addictions don’t wait.” I

agree.

To the Premier, if he meant what he said, will he commit today to

increasing this ministry’s budget?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I thank the member opposite for his concern about the overdose

crisis. I do wish he’d had a hand in shaping his own party’s election

platform in October, at which point they pledged only 25 percent of what

the elected government did for Mental Health and Addictions. But good

ideas can come from all sides of the House, and I look forward to the

member’s support for our commitment in the forthcoming budget, where we

are again, for the fourth year in a row, contributing unprecedented

dollars towards fighting the mental health and addictions

crisis.

Every year $2.7 billion from my colleague the Minister of Health’s

budget goes directly into Mental Health and Addictions. We’ve

contributed $746 million over five years alone, starting in 2017, to

combat the overdose crisis.

That has led to new services that the previous government in the

16 years they had the ability to build these in, did not — 100 new adult

substance use and treatment beds, new Foundry centres across the

province, an enormous expansion of prescription alternatives or safe

supply, and also medication-assisted treatment, in cooperation with

nurse prescribers and so many hard workers on the front line. We are

doing the hard work, and I look forward to my colleagues’ support for

more.

COVID-19 IMPACT AND

DISAGGREGATED DATA

COLLECTION

S. Furstenau: We can’t turn a blind eye to the unequal impacts of this epidemic.

If we are not actively anti-racist in our pandemic policy development,

we risk compounding the systemic racism that has long existed in

B.C.

As was just reported in the Vancouver Sun , the

consequence of the race-based data gap has been especially stark during

COVID-19. “Public health officials have been unable to definitively say

whether racialized groups are infected with the virus at higher rates.”

As my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands notes in that same

article, if you don’t ask the questions, you don’t collect the data, you

become colour-blind to the “nuances of the way policies are affecting

outcomes for different people.”

My question is again to the Premier. In June of last year, he

wrote to the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner and requested her advice on

how to move forward with the collection of race- and ethnicity-based

data, yet nine months later, no work has been done on the suggestions

put forward by the commissioner, meaning we have no data capable of

informing our vaccine rollout plan.

Why has this not been a priority for the Premier?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question and for her interest. As

with all pandemics and with all serious diseases and ailments that face

people, they’re profoundly affected by what we call the social

determinants of health, by income, by ethnicity, by race. Indeed, all of

these things play a role.

Every case is important and every case is followed here in British

Columbia. That’s why we’ve engaged in the program that we are engaging

in to immunize those who are most vulnerable first. That includes,

because the evidence shows this, our elders — in the case of this

immunization, those in long-term care. It’s why we comprehensively

immunized long-term care and assisted living. It was based on the

evidence.

It’s why we are providing immunization in rural and remote

Indigenous communities because of the vulnerability of those communities

to pandemic. It’s why, with respect to Indigenous people, we’re

immunizing 65 and above during the period when, in the general

population, we’re immunizing 80 and above.

Our policies have been informed by who has been affected. Our

policies and direction have been informed by the concerns of regions and

by people, because every case matters. Every single case matters. We

take it all, as you can imagine, very seriously, both at the provincial

health office, the Ministry of Health and throughout the

government.

[10:40 a.m.]

Can we do a better job in future? Yes. But I think that our

provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, our deputy provincial

health officer, Dr. Danièle Behn Smith, the Premier and others have been

very concerned about these very questions and responding to them, and

you see that reflected in our immunization plan.

S. Furstenau: Hon. Speaker, the Health Minister does indicate that decisions are

being made using data and evidence. But they’re being made by the data

and evidence that are being collected.

Let’s look, for example, at Manitoba. Yesterday Manitoba released

a report showing how COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted

Indigenous, Black and other people of colour in the province. Why was

this possible? It’s because Manitoba started collecting race-based and

socioeconomic data in May 2020.

What does the data tell them? Despite being 35 percent of the

population, Manitobans who identified as Black, Indigenous and people of

colour make up over half of the total of COVID cases in the province.

This is not a naturally occurring disparity. It is created by policy.

The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 is systemic, and it is seen in

every jurisdiction, according to Dr. Brent Roussin, chief provincial

public health officer of Manitoba. It’s not about people in communities

making bad choices. COVID-19 infections are largely linked to

pre-existing inequities, including housing and employment, factors

impacted by government policy.

My question, hon. Speaker, is to the Premier. The best time to

start collecting and sharing disaggregated data was a year ago. The

next-best time is now. The Premier has directed his ministers to apply

an antiracist lens in their work.

Will he now commit to collecting and sharing the data that will

ensure that the ministers will have accurate information to be able to

determine how COVID has exacerbated inequities in our

province?

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, we know, because every case matters, that COVID-19

has affected people differently in the province — first of all, our

elders, but also in other communities. Some communities have seen a

profound effect, both as regions and as communities of people. So we

have taken action to address that. It’s why you see such a diversity of

languages in our advertising, in our reaching out to people, and why

we’ve continued to do the work that we need to do to keep everybody

safe.

In June of this year, the member will know, as part of our

antiracist commitment, we launched a commission into racism against

Indigenous People in health care, which provided a comprehensive report

in five months that we are acting on — all of the recommendations. These

issues should be central to all that we do.

These issues affect all that we do, and we’re going to continue to

do everything we can to ensure that those most vulnerable, those most

affected by the COVID-19 crisis, are provided protection. That’s seen in

every part of our immunization plan. It’s seen in all of our efforts to

try and reach out to communities and provide the maximum protection

possible.

There is no question that people’s circumstances make them more

vulnerable to having COVID-19 transmitted to them, and people’s

circumstances mean that the impact on it is greater in some communities.

We saw, and we see — for example, in some of our lowest-income

neighbourhoods in B.C. — the actions taken by public health to protect

people, those systematic actions. I’m very proud of those, very proud of

those communities and very proud of the actions taken.

Again, can we do more? You bet we can. Will we do more? Yes, we

will, but I think the task and the job that we’re doing now reflects our

commitment to the very issues the member raises.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR YOUTH

AND SAFE CARE

LEGISLATION

K. Kirkpatrick: One of the Premier’s excuses for breaking his word and calling a

snap election was the need to pass mental health legislation, but we’ve

seen nothing from this government on the topic since. Parents continue

to knock on the minister’s door asking for help, but no one seems to be

home.

Can the Premier confirm when he will be reintroducing legislation

to support youth with mental health challenges?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Nothing is more important than keeping children safe. The stories

that I’ve heard about families trying to access mental health services

and addiction services, when their families were in crisis, are

heartbreaking.

[10:45 a.m.]

As Dr. Bonnie Henry has said, when our government took office in

2017, there were no systems of care. So we have been building one at the

same time that we’ve been fighting an overdose crisis and now a COVID

pandemic.

The legislation, Bill 22, brought into this House last summer, is

something that I’m still talking with stakeholders about, and we will

not be introducing it in this year. But we absolutely need to deepen

our…. We are actively deepening our commitments to providing services

for young people: doubling the number of youth treatment beds, opening a

virtual Foundry which anybody in the province can access and opening

physical Foundry centres for youth and young adults — a fantastic way

for people to connect. We’re determined to build more.

Whether there is legislation to come alongside with the increased

services is something I’m looking forward to hearing from families and

stakeholders about.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capi­lano on a

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Under your watch, wait times remain long for youth needing

support. When a young person needs mental health help, any wait is like

having no service at all. Trying to negotiate entry into the system is

costly and time-consuming. The small amount of money the Premier chooses

to put into the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions goes to

salaries, not people struggling with addiction.

Again to the Premier, he told British Columbians a safe care act

was vital. When will he be introducing the latest version?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The member opposite…. Where they actively took money out of the

system, they did not create a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

It’s really too bad that we have had to fight so hard under this term of

government to build a system of care up and save lives, because that

system was completely neglected under the previous government. Already,

in just four years, we have reduced wait times for young people

accessing mental health services by 21 percent. It’s not enough. There

is more to do.

In August, we opened 20 new youth beds in a new treatment centre

in Chilliwack. We’ve expanded an adolescent psychiatry clinic and the

new Mental Health and Substance Use Wellness Centre at Royal Columbian.

We launched a new 24-7 mental health access system for post-secondary

students, something that was spawned out of the terrible tragedy in my

own community at Vancouver Island University. Thank you to the student

movement that pushed hard for that.

We have heard from families that the system remains difficult to

access, and there is more to do. I hope we can work together on

expanding even further the $2.7 billion budget that comes from our

government into direct mental health and addiction services for British

Columbians.

OPIOID CRISIS AND

PRESCRIPTION MONITORING

PROGRAM

A. Wilkinson: It’s almost three years ago now that we asked the government to

implement a prescription drug monitoring program. It’s been used very

successfully elsewhere. It reduces opioid deaths where it’s

implemented.

A year ago the then minister said it was being implemented, in

this chamber, sitting in her chair in that corner. Since then, silence.

Since then, 1,700 British Columbians have died of drug

overdoses.

When will this government implement the prescription drug

monitoring program that it’s been working on for three years and they

promised to implement a year ago? In the meantime, four British

Columbians die every day.

Hon. A. Dix: I think the member would have listened and heard the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions talk about our fundamental commitment to

keeping people safe. That includes changes we’ve made through the

College of Physicians and Surgeons to improve protection from the abuse

of prescription drugs across B.C.

I think those actions — actions on the prescription drug side,

actions in terms of treatment, actions in terms of safe supply —

represent a very significant response to what is a crisis for

everyone.

[10:50 a.m.]

I think the member would agree that linking the number of deaths

to a particular aspect of the question is not the way to go about it; a

comprehensive response is. That’s why we have a Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions. That’s why we’re taking steps at every turn,

working with medical professionals and working with pharmacists to make

the system safer. It’s safer today than it’s been. We’re continuing to

do that work into the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: The Minister of Health knows his file. The Minister of Health just

provided an answer which did not address the core question at all. He

skirted around it. He avoided the topic because he has completely failed

to work with the College of Physicians, the nursing college, and other

prescribed entities to implement a prescription drug monitoring program.

It doesn’t exist in British Columbia. It’s been talked about for years,

with no results.

This is a critical time in which to look for results. We’re all

horrified to get this wretched number coming out every month. This

month, January, we had 5½ deaths every day. These are mostly young men

going home, taking a pill, and dying in their own beds. This is a

societal disaster, and we have been asking for three years for this

government to do a very fundamental thing: to work with the medical

profession and other prescribers to implement prescription drug

monitoring to prevent addiction.

What happened to prevention, Minister? Let’s get an answer on when

— not if, but when — we’re going to get a prescription drug monitoring

program.

Hon. A. Dix: I’m very surprised that the member would diminish the

extraordinary work being done between the Ministry of Health, the health

authorities, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Ministry of

Mental Health and Addictions, to ensure the safety of prescription drugs

in the province and the safety of their utilization. The changes have

been, and continue to be, extraordinary.

I think just diminishing it, just calling out names and suggesting

that work hasn’t been done…. It’s just not the case. He will know that

that work is extensive. I would be happy to provide him with a briefing

with B.C. PharmaCare, in concert with the Ministry of Mental Health and

Addictions, to do just that, so that he can see the work that’s been

done, see the effort that has been done and see the work that’s involved

— not just by me and others but that have involved the entire community

of doctors and nurses working on these very questions.

It’s going to take that community and the broader community, as we

respond to the crisis, the heartache and the pain of our overdose crisis

in British Columbia. We’re going to continue to make those efforts at

every turn, whether it’s taking actions against what have been abuses in

the past by pharmaceutical companies — as we are in some of our legal

actions — by expanding access to treatment, or by ensuring appropriate

and proper prescribing.

All of these are aspects of the problem. I know the member is

concerned with these issues. I would be happy to continue to work with

him to see that we get the best possible results for people.

OPIOID CRISIS AND

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR

YOUTH

S. Cadieux: It was the worst January ever for opioid deaths: 165 people lost

their lives. Yesterday the member from Abbotsford-Mission said: “In my

own work as an MLA, it has been the mental health toll of COVID-19 that

I’ve seen impact my constituents that has hit me the hardest, especially

amongst young people.” She’s right. It brings to mind the sad case of a

Langford family who got a call finally setting up an appointment with a

psychiatrist, three days after their son went missing and was found

dead.

To the Premier, when will he provide the promised support for

those suffering with mental illness and addiction?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Surrey South for her question and the

reference specifically to a family, a grieving family, in my community.

It’s not just in Langford; it is across the province. We’re all aware of

that. I appreciate the work of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. I

appreciate the work of all members of this House to bring awareness to

the challenge so that we can destigmatize it and take proactive actions.

I support, certainly, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I

support the Minister of Health.

[10:55 a.m.]

The billions of dollars that this government and previous

governments have put in to try and stem this societal disaster…. It will

take all of us — not just today, not just next month, not just next

week, but for a long, long time — coming out of COVID, to focus our

energies on making sure the right people get the right

services.

The question earlier to me on that very question — that’s what I

said. That’s what our intention was when we created the ministry. The

ministry’s budget is the size it is. The amount we spend is

significantly higher. I’m certain that the Minister of Health and the

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions would love to walk the new

members on all sides of the House through how that funding is

undertaken.

To focus on the societal disaster is the responsibility of all of

us — not just the minister, not just families who are grieving, but

everyone in our community. I know, with absolute certainty, that 87

people in this place are committed to that. If we keep our shoulder to

the wheel, keep focused on that and have respectful dialogue, as we’ve

done today, on this important issue, we will make the progress that all

of us demand not just now but in the future.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT AN

OMBUDSPERSON

Hon. M. Farnworth: Notwithstanding Standing Orders 48(1) and 69(1), I seek leave

to move two motions to appoint two special committees. The full text

of these motions has been provided to the two other House

Leaders.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That a Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson be

appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative

Assembly the appointment of an individual as Ombudsperson, pursuant

section 2 of the Ombudsperson Act (R.S.B.C. 1996,

c. 340).

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a) appoint of its number, one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters

referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the

subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report

directly to the House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next

following Session and during any sitting of the

House;

c) adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

d) retain such personnel as required to assist the

Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House as soon as

possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following

Session, as the case may be; and deposit the original of its reports

with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of

adjournment, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the

Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative

Assembly.

That the Special Committee be composed of: Janet

Routledge (Convener), Jagrup Brar, Fin Donnelly, Bruce

Banman, and Teresa Wat .]

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO REVIEW PROVISIONS

OF THE ELECTION ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That, pursuant to

section 215.03 of the Election Act

(R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106) a Special Committee to Review Provisions of

the Election Act be appointed to conduct a review of the annual

allowance paid to political parties under

section 215.02 of the Act,

including, but not limited to, a review of the following:

1. Whether an annual allowance paid to political parties

should be continued to be paid after 2022.

2. If an annual allowance to political parties is to be

continued,

a) the amount of the annual allowance,

and

b) the number of years the annual allowance is to be

paid.

That the Special Committee have all the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a) appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees

and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its

powers except the power to report directly to the

House;

b) sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) conduct consultations by any means the Special

Committee considers appropriate;

d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

e) retain personnel as required to assist the Special

Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House within six months of

this motion being adopted by the House, or at the next following

Session, as the case may be; and shall deposit the original of its

reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of

adjournment, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair

shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee be composed of: Jagrup Brar

(Convener), Brittny Anderson, Ronna-Rae Leonard, Andrew

Mer­cier, Greg Kyllo, Peter Milobar and Adam

Olsen .]

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled

Report on Financial Audit Work for the 2019-20 Fiscal Year from

the Office of the Auditor General.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued response to the Speech from the Throne.

[11:00 a.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. M. Dean: [Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ was spoken] Mitzi

Dean. I go by she/her pronouns, and I spoke in the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ language to show my

appreciation and respect for the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ and Xwsepsun land we are

on today and the Indigenous people whose traditional territory this is,

particularly the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I’d like to take this

opportunity to recognize the Scia’new Nation, my neighbours at Beecher Bay,

as well.

I’m very pleased to speak in support of the throne speech, which is

focused on how government is taking action to protect the health and

livelihoods of people in this province from the threat of

COVID-19.

I’d like to start by recognizing some amazing people who have been

working with me over the last years, in particular Lawrence Herzog and

Andrew Barrett, for all of their service. They’ve recently left the

constituency office, and I wish them the very best of luck in their future.

I also want to thank Nubwa Wathanafa for all of her wonderful work and

support for the communities of Esquimalt-Metchosin. I welcome Jared Butcher

and Kristina Leach, joining our team in 2021. I am so grateful to our team

and how we all work together in service to our community.

The pandemic has turned our worlds upside down. Through this pandemic,

British Columbians have followed guidance from public health officials to

keep themselves and their loved ones safe. This government understands what

people are going through. We’re listening, and we’re taking action to make

life easier for families during this difficult time.

We recognize that, as Dr. Bonnie Henry says, we’re all in the storm,

but we’re not in the same boat, and we don’t all have the same emergency

provisions. Whether we have family in long-term care or we’re looking after

toddlers or we have a student graduating this year, we all have demanding

and unique situations to consider. COVID-19 has forced us all to be

flexible, to do things differently and to follow new rules to keep ourselves

and others safe.

I don’t think many of us could have even imagined, a year ago, that we

would be here today. It’s been a long, hard year. We’re tired, and we’re

strong. It’s been really gratifying to see how, in so many ways, we have

come together as a community even while staying apart.

We know that many people have been struggling to cope due to personal,

emotional and economic challenges. This government is taking swift action to

support them. To this end, we’ve made key investments in health care to ease

pressure on the medical system and ensure everyone can get the care they

need.

The vaccine rollout is well underway in British Columbia, and this is

a huge step in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. My colleague the

Minister of Health and provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry have been

working around the clock to ensure the vaccine will be distributed to all

British Columbians as quickly and safely as possible, beginning with those

who are most vulnerable.

[11:05 a.m.]

But we need to stay strong for a few more months. By then, vaccines

will be in arms, and we’ll be closer to reclaiming our new normal. It will

take some time and patience, but we are making progress.

In the meantime, government is also building a recovery plan that

includes everyone, not just those at the top. The steps government has taken

in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have saved lives. We will continue to

support people, families and businesses to stay safe so we can beat this

virus and move further along in our economic recovery.

Just as we’ve asked British Columbians to adapt to the pandemic

landscape, government has also had to be flexible in our approach to

supporting people through this unprecedented time. As the Minister of

Children and Family Development, I’d like to thank the staff in my own

ministry, in delegated Aboriginal agencies and in our community partners,

and families in the community for all the work that they’ve done in helping

families and children and youth get through this pandemic.

Our work in our ministry is demanding every day. In a pandemic, it is

even more critical and tiring. I want to acknowledge the commitment of

everyone to serving and caring for our children and youth: front-line

workers, support staff, family members, carers, foster parents who have

continued their work while also balancing their own situation in this

crisis.

As soon as the pandemic hit, my ministry worked to put emergency

measures in place to ensure that the children, youth and families we serve

felt supported and safe. To lessen the stress of moving into independence

during this challenging time, youth who were turning 19 and set to

transition into independence were instead able to continue to receive the

supports and stay in the homes that they were counting on. We have just

extended that all the way through to the end of March 2022. This means that

young adults will be able to stay in their current homes and continue to

receive the supports that they count on.

In addition, for the first time, those who are eligible for the

agreements with young adults program can apply to participate in both

programs at the same time. Young adults using the emergency housing support

could be eligible to receive up to $350 a month through AYA, based on their

unique needs and the length of their program. Just imagine. This will help

them participate in life skills, mental health or post-secondary programs,

all while remaining in their home. Imagine how that changes their trajectory

moving forward, beyond and past the pandemic. It sets them up for success

and for a thriving future.

We’ve also extended and expanded emergency measures for the agreements

with young adults program to make it easier for youth from care to pursue

life skills and mental health supports. These supports have a long-term

impact on the trajectory of development and success for these young people.

I’ve heard that from young people in care — what a difference this is going

to make. I’m really grateful to all of them for coming forward, for

advocating, for sharing their life expertise and their insights and ideas as

well.

It was only recently I was on a call with several young people who

were telling me how anxious they were about their future situation, because

they didn’t know where they’d be living in a matter of just a few weeks.

Imagine if your teenage child was about to lose the roof from over their

head, and they didn’t have you as a safety net. Well, as the parents of

these young adults, we provided that security to them. They asked us to

help, and I was so grateful to be able to respond to their ask and provide

what they told us was vital to them.

We will continue to assess how we’re supporting the youth we serve to

help prevent them from falling through the cracks as a result of this

pandemic.

We also provided emergency supports for children and youth with

support needs, and their families. We know that many families struggle every

day, and their challenges only increased once the pandemic hit. Back in the

spring of last year, many of the face-to-face services families depended on

were reduced, or they had to pivot, or they weren’t available for a short

amount of time. You can imagine the reality of the stress and uncertainty

that that caused for these families.

[11:10 a.m.]

We launched a temporary emergency relief support fund that provided

eligible families with a direct payment of $225 per month for up to three

months. This helped families who were waiting for services like respite to

seek support.

A message that we heard loud and clear from families was that they

wanted flexibility in these uncertain times so that they could use their

respite funds to support their family in whatever ways were possible,

whatever ways would work for their particular family situation to relieve

some of the stress and burden.

We delivered. We made policies more flexible so that we could give

families of children with support needs as much added help as possible. For

example, families can use their funding to purchase services that help their

family situation. It could be housekeeping, or it might be meal preparation.

We’ve made the decision to extend this emergency measure, again, until the

end of March 2022.

I know families are still facing challenges. We’re tired, and we’re

losing our resilience. We’re continuing to work to support these families.

That’s why my ministry is working on a new framework that will better meet

the needs of children and youth with support needs and their

families.

Back in December, I committed to setting up an advisory council to

help finalize the details of the framework. Applications for the council

closed only last week, and I’m really looking forward to meeting with the

members to get their insights, to hear their stories and to learn from them.

They have so much expertise and so many great ideas as well. Their input

will, actually, help us inform the next steps of our plan. I believe there

should be “Nothing about us without us.”

I’m committed to making lives better for B.C. families and to

improving the supports and services that they count on. That’s why I’m so

honoured to have been given a mandate by Premier Horgan that is focused on

reforming the child welfare system and on better supporting families,

children and youth in B.C. Having spent over 30 years working in social

services and child protection, this work is a true passion of mine. I

believe strongly in collaboration, and I know that together we can make a

difference.

All children and youth have the right to live safe, secure and happy

lives and to fulfil their potential. I see the work happening to make this

possible for all of the children and youth in British Columbia.

Our government has made changes to legislation and social work

practice with a focus on family preservation and keeping more families

together. When it’s not possible to keep children and youth safely with

their families, staff work to find permanent and loving homes for children

and youth within their community so that they can keep connected with their

culture.

This is a really big and significant and important change from how the

child welfare system worked for so long, and we are starting to see results.

We’re seeing the lowest number of children and youth in care in 30 years and

the lowest number of Indigenous children and youth in care in 20

years.

We know there’s more work to do. Indigenous children and youth are

still overrepresented in the child welfare system, but we are committed to

working to help families stay together safely and to keep kids connected to

their communities and cultures.

As we continue to weather the COVID-19 storm, the pandemic has also

reminded us very strongly that affordable, good-quality, accessible child

care is not just about supporting people and families. A strong child care

system is the foundation of a strong economy, and it’s vital to B.C.’s

recovery.

My colleague the Minister of State for Child Care is leading the way

on monumental change in our province. There’s no guidebook for how to

respond to a global pandemic, but I’m incredibly proud of B.C.’s response.

Indeed, other provinces and territories are now realizing just how important

child care is to their social and economic infrastructure.

[11:15 a.m.]

As soon as the state of emergency was declared, our government quickly

stepped up to support families and child care providers. We launched the

temporary emergency funding program to protect child care spaces for

families. In total, approximately $320 million flowed to 4,500 child care

providers to help keep centres financially afloat.

This program was unique to British Columbia, and it demonstrates our

willingness and commitment to listen and learn and to adapt to needs as they

arise.

During the first months of the pandemic, many parents also chose to

keep their children at home. This meant that child care centres were able to

offer spaces to the children of essential workers, allowing those parents to

work on the front lines of the pandemic while their children were being

safely cared for.

There’s more work to do, and we recognize that the challenges aren’t

over. That’s why we’re responding with tens of millions of dollars to help

child care operators continue to deliver COVID-safe care.

We’re building a universal child care system that will support B.C.

families for generations to come. We’ve already funded more than 20,000 new

licensed spaces throughout the province, and we’re continuing to support

early childhood educators through wage enhancements, training and

bursaries.

Every space that opens represents a new opportunity for a family. I’ve

heard directly from families, from parents. I’ve had them in tears in my

office, telling me the difference that this child care plan has made to

their daily lives — and not only their daily lives, but their futures and

where they were going to choose to live and work and how close they were

going to be able to live and work with extended family. These are really

significant impacts on the long-term and short-term lives of British

Columbian families.

It’s an opportunity for a child to learn and grow and thrive today and

down the road. It’s an opportunity for a mom to rejoin the workforce. Then

she might pursue promotions, invest in her pension — now that she can count

on safe, affordable child care.

In short, access to child care is life-changing for families. That’s

why I’m here. That’s why my colleagues are here. That’s why we’re all here —

to deliver real, positive change for the people in the communities we

represent.

We’ve accomplished a lot in government over the past four years, and

there’s much more to do to continue to make life better and more affordable

for people. We’ve already improved the daily lives of so many and can get so

much more done in the years ahead together.

Háy̓sxʷ q̓ə. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Are there any further speakers?

If not, does the member have a motion to make?

Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising today. I do understand

that there is, I believe, a list of speakers, but I don’t have the list. I’m

very happy to get on my feet to speak to the Speech from the

Throne.

It is important to acknowledge the tradition of getting up on our feet

to speak to our constituents about what is going on for us in our

constituencies, what it means to be an MLA, that none of us could be here on

our own.

I see that the House Leader is here. I understand that we are done our

speaking order, but I just want to take a moment, if I can, to thank the

members of Coquitlam-Maillardville for electing me here.

With that, I will move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 7.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — TENANCY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

COVID-19 has turned the lives of British Columbians upside down.

One of the government’s commitments set out in our election platform is

to put people first. These proposed amendments address that commitment.

First, to address one of the items in my mandate letter from the

Premier, this bill introduces an amendment that will make life more

affordable for renters, many of whom have been hit hard by COVID-19.

This amendment will extend the freeze on rent increases we previously

put in place to protect tenants until the end of 2021. Ensuring people

have safe, secure and affordable housing is especially important during

these unprecedented times. In 2022 and beyond, rent increases will be

capped at the rate of inflation.

The rest of the amendments respond to the recommendations made by

the Rental Housing Task Force. I want to thank the member for

Vancouver–West End for chairing that task force, the member for

Courtenay-Comox for being a very active member and, as well, the member

for Saanich North and the Islands for his participation.

As you may remember, this biparty task force went across the

province in the summer of 2018 to hear from British Columbians about

residential tenancy laws, policies and services. The task force

connected with renters, rental housing providers and other

housing-related organizations.

There were many opportunities to participate, including

stakeholder meetings, formal submissions, online engagement and 11

community meetings around the province, in Burnaby, Kelowna, Maple

Ridge, Nanaimo, Nelson, Prince George, Saltspring Island, Surrey,

Terrace, Vancouver and Victoria. Invitations to participate in this

consultation process were sent to the First Nations Leadership Council,

Métis Nation B.C., the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres

and the Aboriginal Housing Management Association. We also reached out

to local nations where public meetings were being held.

The result was a report and 23 recommendations to improve the

system and meet the needs of landlords and tenants. The task force’s

recommendations addressed gaps in safe and secure housing and

highlighted the need for greater education among renters and rental

housing providers about their respective rights and responsibilities and

to strengthen enforcement, supply and fair process.

These amendments specifically respond to a number of the task

force’s recommendations. Treaty First Nations were notified of these

proposed changes.

Renovictions. The No. 1 recommendation made by the task force was

to stop renovictions, a process by which landlords evict tenants under

the guise of renovating a rental unit, make very minor or cosmetic

changes and then re-rent the unit at a much higher rent. Even tenants

who could temporarily relocate during a renovation were being

evicted.

In order to ensure that landlords are only ending tenancies where

the repairs or renovations are necessary and where vacant possession of

a rental unit is the only way to do the renovation, we are introducing

an amendment that will strengthen the criteria and require landlords to

apply to the residential tenancy branch prior to issuing a notice to end

tenancy. Currently the onus or responsibility is on the tenant to

dispute a notice to end tenancy for renovations. Many do not because

they don’t know the rules and have limited time to find a new place if

they are unsuccessful. This results in tenants being displaced in

situations where the landlord has clearly not met the requirements in

the act.

Under the new system, the onus or responsibility will be on the

landlord to prove that the tenancy must end to accommodate the work

before any notices are issued. This will stop tenants from being

displaced for minor renovations or situations where they can easily be

accommodated while the work is being done.

The landlord will also be required to apply to end all the

tenancies that are affected under a single application rather than

filing a separate application for each rental unit. This will reduce the

cost and administrative burden of this change and ensure consistent

decisions for all tenants in the building.

We know that with aging rental buildings, major upgrades can be

necessary. These changes will ensure that landlords can continue to make

major life-extending upgrades to properties but end the practice of

renovicting tenants for minor renovations designed only to push rents

higher.

[11:25 a.m.]

Recommendation No. 14 of the task force was to improve procedural

fairness in tenancy disputes. Currently there are only three grounds by

which a party can apply to have the residential tenancy branch review a

decision or order that they’ve made. Ground 1: the party was unable to

attend the original hearing because of circumstances that could not be

anticipated and were beyond their control, such as a health emergency.

Ground 2: the party has new and relevant evidence that was unavailable

at the time of the hearing. Or ground 3: the party has evidence that the

decision or order was obtained by fraud.

This bill has expanded the first ground to allow review if the

party was unable to attend a portion of the hearing — for example, if

they were disconnected and couldn’t reconnect before the end of the

hearing. We’re adding two narrow grounds to address procedural fairness

where a party submitted relevant evidence that was not before the

arbitrator at the original hearing due to circumstances beyond their

control — for example, they submitted evidence late because they were

hospitalized. The second narrow ground is where there was an

administrative error made by the residential tenancy branch that

impacted the outcome — for example, documents were uploaded to the wrong

file, so the arbitrator didn’t consider them.

We are also adding two narrow grounds allowing the director to

reopen a decision if the director declined jurisdiction or wouldn’t hear

the dispute, declined jurisdiction to resolve a dispute that the

director was required to resolve, or the director resolved a dispute

that the director had no jurisdiction to resolve.

Finally, we’ve added a new provision to allow the residential

tenancy branch to review a decision or an order on its own initiative

rather than waiting for one of the parties to apply. While a judicial

review of the reasonableness of a decision remains within the

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, these amendments will allow the

residential tenancy branch to undertake a review of a decision where it

is clear an error has been made. It will divert cases from the judicial

review process to the RTB’s internal review process, which will reduce

costs to parties, the courts and government.

Recommendation No. 23 was to ensure manufactured home park rules

are clear and understandable when there is a conflict with a tenancy

agreement. To address this, we are clarifying language in the

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to ensure park rules, which can be

changed easily by the park owner, do not override standard or material

terms in an existing tenancy agreement.

As well, there are currently no limits to how often park rules can

be changed. This can lead to frequent changes that may unfairly target

tenants. New regulatory authority will allow future changes to limit the

frequency with which park owners may change park rules. These changes

will come after consultation with park and homeowner stakeholder groups

over the coming months.

Recommendation No. 5 was to strengthen enforcement and compliance

with tenancy legislation. A compliance and enforcement unit, or CEU, was

established in 2019 to investigate cases of non-compliance with the act

and levy administrative penalties where appropriate. Through their work,

it has become clear that some changes are needed to improve and

strengthen this process. Currently the director may compel documents

from a person who is under investigation by the compliance and

enforcement unit.

“Document” is not a defined term in the legislation, which has the

possibility of creating confusion and uncertainty about the scope of the

director’s authority and the type of documents that can be compelled.

The amendment will broaden the type of material the director may compel

by replacing “document” with “record,” which has a broader meaning and

is defined in the

Interpretation Act, bringing greater clarity to the

provision. It also will allow the director to compel records from a

person, such as a contractor or other third party who is not under

investigation but who may hold important information related to the

investigation.

Currently the director may levy an administrative penalty against

a person if they contravened a provision of the act or regulations or

failed to comply with a decision or order of the director. The proposed

amendment will also allow the director to levy an administrative penalty

against a person who gave false or misleading information in a

dispute-resolution proceeding or investigation or who failed to comply

with a demand issued by the director for production of records. This

amendment will deter fraud in dispute-resolution proceedings and

administrative penalty investigations. It will also help the director

conduct thorough investigations.

Currently the grounds to review an administrative penalty decision

are the same as the review provisions that apply to a dispute

resolution. As we gained more experience with administrative penalties,

it became clear that these grounds are not always relevant. The

amendment will correct this by establishing grounds of review specific

to administrative penalties. It will also give the director authority to

undertake a review of an administrative penalty on the director’s

initiative rather than having to wait for one of the parties to file a

review.

There are currently no procedures in the act or regulations that

set out how a person who has been compelled to produce records can

object to having to produce them. This amendment will allow the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish in regulation procedures to

provide an opportunity for a person to object to a demand for production

of records. This provides greater fairness and transparency for the

administrative penalty process.

[11:30 a.m.]

Another amendment in this bill relates to recommendation No. 8,

which called on the RTB to investigate options that would help increase

the repayment rate of damages, non-payment of rent and other storage

costs.

This amendment will simplify the process for landlords who are

trying to evict a tenant for unpaid rent. It will allow the director to

grant a monetary order for the outstanding rent at the same hearing if a

tenant’s application to dispute a notice to end tenancy is dismissed.

This will avoid a subsequent application by the landlord, an additional

fee and further delay to recover the outstanding rent. It will also

maximize the RTB’s limited resources by eliminating a second

hearing.

The remaining changes are housekeeping amendments. The amendments

that refer to the small claims limit reflect the RTB’s current policy on

accepting monetary claims. These amendments will help to clarify that

the $35,000 monetary limit only applies to claims for damages and debt,

not other claims such as compensation or repairs.

Finally, changes to regulation-making power will ensure the

government’s commitment to allow landlords to apply for an additional

rent increase for capital expenditures can be implemented later this

year.

B. Stewart: It’s an honour to be here speaking in this House and chamber on

this particular bill.

I think it’s very clear that the government has made significant

promises to British Columbians about affordability and is trying to make

certain that they are trying to find ways to ensure that. I think that

probably there are many questions that arise out of the introduction of

Bill 7 that need to be answered. We will be questioning the minister in

terms of those items.

I know that this is about creating certainty for tenants — as well

as, in some cases, landlords — but I think that there is a question,

especially when it comes to things like rent freezes.

When you do have things like rent freezes, how does the landlord

community contain or control costs that they’re faced with —

ever-increasing taxes by communities or other factors — that are beyond

their control? I realize that this is a two-year hold, but the future is

on the B.C. CPI index, usually established around September, I’m told. I

think that probably the landlord community is going to be very

interested in the degree of fairness that is also in this particular

legislation.

The other things that I think…. Questions about rental evictions

or rent controls. One of the areas that we know that has been

overlooked, in terms of controls, has been at the post-secondary

educations that have a large degree of students that are renting and on

very fixed incomes and limited resources. The fact is that this act,

it’s my understanding, also doesn’t affect or can’t be imposed on the

universities just due to the nature of the way that it works.

I do think that there is some question by students in British

Columbia, who I’ve met with recently. I know our critic will have more

to say on that in very short order.

I do think that the question about administrative fairness for all

renters needs to be considered when we’re talking about these types of

actions and controls that are being proposed by the government and the

minister to bring in, where people that are part of the residential

tenancy branch are going to be making these types of sweeping decisions,

taking it away from a review by the judiciary in terms of the fairness.

I realize that this is about speeding up the process, but we need to

make certain that it’s equitable and fair for all parties

concerned.

I know that there are many recommendations created by the rental

task force. I had the opportunity to participate at the well-attended

meetings in Kelowna.

[11:35 a.m.]

I do think that there is certainly a bias in terms of those types

of meetings when it comes to trying to make certain that the things that

are needed to create more supply…. That really wasn’t discussed. What

was discussed was more about the current situation, the circumstances.

To be fair to the member that chaired that, those questions, in my mind,

were left unanswered and need to be considered, because supply is such

an important part of this.

Recently the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. released a

report that showed that there was a decline, just in the Vancouver area,

of almost 22 percent, in construction of housing in the past 12 months.

That’s a staggering amount. It’s the lowest number in many decades. The

situation is that with the growing population here in British Columbia,

it is not just the existing rentals that we have, but it’s the future

rental properties that we need, to make certain that we’re doing our job

to help bring supply online.

We need to be there to create opportunities, that opportunity for

the increased supply to have the supply-and-demand effect on pricing,

which I think any of the members that have an economics background would

understand. If the supply is short, rates go up, and those people that

are renting, or landlords, look for opportunities to increase their

rents. If we could bring supply online, that would help suppress that.

That’s something that I think has been brought up many times in this

House in remarks about the supply of housing.

Frankly, just recently in my own community, there was a

development that was turned down — for whatever the reasons are; I

wasn’t at the council meeting — a 1,200-lot new development. For various

reasons — transportation infrastructure, other issues about trying to

address growing city demands, trapped with ALR lands surrounding the

city — it’s making it so that there are very long distances in

communities. I know that that exists for many of the

communities.

Whether it’s Langley, Surrey, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, these

communities are faced with that land use constraint, and we have to

think bigger-picture if we’re going to maintain the agricultural land

reserve. We have to find ways of supporting these communities — whether

it’s transportation, infrastructure — to help build communities and help

them with it, in terms of what the constraints are.

I know that many of my colleagues who have a background in local

politics, local government, will want to have a say in this because they

would like to see some of these things happen, and frankly, it’s going

to be up to the province to help communities increase supply.

You can’t just choke off the rental increases and expect that this

is going to solve the problem. To be honest, I think that the inverse is

going to happen, and we’re actually going to have a spike in terms of

lower rental properties and less accommodation, and we’re going to be

faced with a new crisis if we don’t address the supply issue. I’m not

certain if the minister and his staff have been talking about that, but

I’ll look forward to further discussion and debate about that as we work

through Bill 7 in terms of the entirety of it.

The other thing. I think the government, obviously under pressure

and having called a snap election during the COVID pandemic, reiterated

its commitment to affordability. Now, I haven’t seen, and there’s

nothing in this legislation…. Maybe, perhaps the Minister of Finance is

going to bring in some ability to roll out the renters rebate that was

promised back in 2017 for renters that were facing the very same dilemma

they face today: higher rental costs. The fact is that they can’t make

their wages go as far as they need to, to being able to afford to

rent.

It’s my understanding that up to 50 percent of wages in the

Vancouver-GVRD area is going into rental. Now, I used to be in the

banking business, and we would not consider lending money to people that

paid more than 30 percent of their income into housing. Frankly, there’s

a disconnect there, and we need to make certain that we’re doing our job

to thoughtfully encourage and attract good businesses that create

high-paying jobs here, into British Columbia, so that these wages are

continuing to grow.

[11:40 a.m.]

Part of that is through the institutions like UBC and Simon Fraser

and all the other post-secondary education. I’m happy to see that

there’s great investment in that. But we have a technology hub that is

clearly a different pillar than just the natural resource–based

industries that we have depended on for our entire life here in British

Columbia.

More importantly, there are opportunities, but we need to foster

that. Having more supply of affordable accommodation in those areas….

Whether it’s Burnaby or Langley or Surrey or wherever it might be, those

hubs need to have access to that affordability so that those people will

be attracted to come to work for companies that would like to be here

and know that we have the talent pool to be able to make this all take

place.

I think that’s clearly one of the things that we’re wanting to see

the government move forward on, not just to bring in rent controls to

give what I would say, in some cases, is more like window dressing to

the whole issue of affordability. Affordability is a combination of

being able to create better-paying jobs, making certain that the cost of

living is continuing to go down and not necessarily being overloaded

with taxes and other costs that governments put onto the

taxpayers.

I think that’s one of things that we’re going to be looking for in

terms of this particular parliament. We would like to see that we’re

moving ahead and clearly establishing the opportunities that new British

Columbians, young British Columbians, can bring to the table and not

have to have British Columbia just become only people that want to

retire here. They like the quality of life. They like the lifestyle. But

what about the young people that want to raise families and have a home,

etc.? How are they going to get ahead?

We’ve seen that in just the past four years, there’s been an

increase in the cost of renting. It has gone up by $2,500 per year in

the Vancouver area, so you can’t tell me that that’s more affordable. I

think the reality is that there are many unanswered questions. To try to

control it from the top-down approach with rent controls, etc., is, as I

said, counter-productive. The reality is that we have to create greater

opportunities for people working here. There are great opportunities in

British Columbia. What we need to do is encourage that, develop that,

look forward to the opportunities that we can create being a powerhouse

in terms of talent and exporting goods and services to other

communities.

We know British Columbia, certainly with its population of just

over five million people, is not going to be able to grow unless we

export. That’s one of the things that — of course, not to do with Bill

7, but previously — was a decision made by another ministry — to close

down its efforts to export and then trade all across Asia, which is, as

most people know, one of the biggest trading markets in the world,

besides the United States.

As we’ve seen with the recent challenges expressed out of

countries that have vaccine production, we’re behind the scenes. I mean,

we don’t have the vaccine production here in Canada or in British

Columbia. I think that probably that’s something we’re going be looking

at more closely. I think independence of our goods and services is

important. So what we really need to do is make certain that we can turn

people’s young minds to the whole idea of being able to create an

opportunity, a living and prosperity here in British Columbia and of

being able to sell those talented ideas and goods and services to other

communities around the globe.

I do want to know where this renters grant that was promised, not

just in the 2017 election but reiterated, about making things more

affordable…. I have many constituents that still are waiting for the

$500 commitment to make life more affordable that was promised during

the October election. Frankly, as we heard yesterday from one of the

speakers during private members’ time, about two million people have

received that payment, but we have over 1½ million others, maybe even

almost close to two million, whose applications have not been processed.

They’re in a queue where they just can’t seem to get through

that.

[11:45 a.m.]

I certainly hope that when it comes to the comparison of people

wanting to go through places like the residential tenancy branch, where

the workload is going to be substantially more on the staff and the

director there in adjudicating many decisions that currently don’t go to

them…. What are the resources going to be to the residential tenancy

branch, being able to make certain that we can achieve a reasonable

turnaround?

That’s the goal. That’s why the landlords of B.C. have supported

that. They see that it is a streamlined process. However, without the

certainty that there’s going to be a reasonably quick turnaround…. We

haven’t seen that demonstrated. We’re watching today. As we know,

yesterday the public health officer and the Health Minister rolled out

vaccination plans — when they’re going to start rolling out for people

that are over 80 and then the next age groups, as the vaccines become

available. But I do think that the execution on these things is so

critically important.

I think people are looking to make certain that they have

certainty in their lives, whether it’s about rental, whether they can

renovate, whether they can meet timelines — the fact that the community

has that certainty. We need to make certain that we have the capacity in

those areas where we put that responsibility. I know that we’re changing

the shift, and it’s considered to be slower right now. The report from

the task force on rental housing has laid it out that they needed a

speedier resolution mechanism, and I certainly hope that this can be

accomplished with this legislation.

I think the one thing that we have touched on here is the fact

that this talks about the current stock, in terms of capping the cost

for people that have existing rental accommodation. But I also hear from

other people that are in communities that can’t recover their costs.

They’re taking their product out of circulation and putting it into

seasonal rentals or other things that avoid some of the laws and the

rules. So we’re losing stock to people that are trying to make certain

that it financially makes sense for them to put hard-earned dollars into

rental housing stock. Doesn’t matter if it’s just….

The bigger companies will…. I don’t see in the news release that

they have supported this. But I do think they’re going to be the ones

that need to make certain that they have certainty, because it’s going

to take a large amount of capital to build the rental stock that we

need. British Columbia already has over 60,000 residents that come here

every year and call British Columbia home. They need homes.

The other thing that’s happening is that the federal government is

increasing immigration. They want further immigration. We know that

that’s needed, too, just because of declining birth rates in Canada. We

need to make certain we have positive immigration to maintain our

standard of living, but it requires housing stock. I don’t see anything

here that’s going to increase housing stock for the over 60,000 new

British Columbians, let alone the ones that the federal government is

proposing to bring in.

British Columbia is one of the most attractive locations, but we

don’t want it to be unattractive. We want it to be a place where they

want to come to, where they can find friends and family — opportunities

— where their children or their families can grow and contribute. I just

think that, as I said earlier, we have to go back to what is going to

create the conditions for greater supply.

I know some people think that the federal government is partially

responsible for this, but I really do believe that the provincial

government is going to have to take the initiative. The difference here

versus, maybe, let’s say, Toronto…. They don’t have an agricultural land

reserve. They have all sorts of agricultural land that’s integrated and

in certain areas. British Columbia is unique in difference. There is no

other province that has that constraint around it.

[11:50 a.m.]

Out of the 90-plus million hectares that are in British Columbia,

we have about 4½ million hectares protected by the agricultural land

reserve. A lot of that land is in areas that are desirable for people to

live, and we haven’t answered the question about how we’re going to be

able to coexist with the two, both in the Lower Mainland, in the

Okanagan and in other parts. In many communities, there’s a lot of

opportunity, but it’s constrained by the land commission.

Frankly, there needs to be some rethinking in terms of whether, in

the Peace River or in the Cariboo, some of these places could be seen as

opportunities — logical extensions of communities — rather than having

them grow where there are no services and no ability to grow the housing

stock within their communities. Our new opportunities, whether they’re

in the natural resources sector, whether it’s mining, forestry — some of

the things that are out there — whether it’s on the coast, going to grow

without the development of supports from the provincial

government….

I know that I cited some statistics. We talked a little bit about

what had happened with the construction of new homes last year. It had

dipped down to a 21-year low in terms of overall construction. This

government committed, in 2017, to building 114,000 new units of

affordable and rental housing, to see that done. As far as what we can

tell from the reports that we’ve received from B.C. Housing in their

annual reports, the government, four years into its ten-year plan, have

only delivered on just over 3,000 completed units in that. I don’t know

how they’re planning on counting that. I know there are projects right

here in my own community. There’s a shelter that was announced in

November of 2018.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It’s still fenced. There’s nothing there. No construction. I don’t

know what the problem is, and I can’t seem to get an answer as to why

that’s being held up. But I do think we need a lot of the solutions that

were, as part of the 30-point plan by the government…. They were going

to make certain that every person had a home in British Columbia. I know

that COVID has very much impacted that. However, what we have seen is

many places that are the modular construction — that have built places

across the province. I do think that they have been helpful. But in a

lot of cases, there have not been the supports or the diversity in terms

of housing stock that B.C. Housing is committed to building under its

30-point plan.

What about seniors? What about low income? Where are those

properties being created? This legislation, unfortunately, doesn’t come

close to being able to answer those questions in terms of where it’s

going to go. I know that the minister responsible was the critic for a

number of years. I’m sure he has many good ideas. But the reality is

that wraparound supports for these supportive housing units are what’s

going to increase the community’s willingness to embrace having these

people in their communities. They know that they’re getting proper

treatment, whether it’s issues about substance abuse, which we heard a

lot about earlier today, or mental health.

The bottom line is: we need to make certain that there is the

support there to make certain that supportive housing of all sorts and

all shapes and sizes is successful. We need to make certain we find ways

with communities to not suck up the available supply of land that these

communities have land-banked over the years for good, important

purposes. Make certain that there are opportunities for diverse, mixed

neighbourhoods of all sorts of people from different ethnic backgrounds

to be able to come together and celebrate in every city of the province

of British Columbia, not just be put into modular housing. Frankly, a

lot of it is done under a very short-term viewpoint of getting that.

Tenancy on the properties, in a lot of cases, is limited.

As I said, without the wraparound supports, we have many

communities living in fear around the whole addition of this type of

housing coming into their community. What we need to do is have councils

embrace it. Just recently, I participated in a B.C. Housing public forum

on some new housing being proposed in Penticton. Council was extremely

outspoken about the fact that they had seen significant increases in

crime on the three other recently completed projects in their

community.

[11:55 a.m.]

They were questioning whether this project that they were

proposing was actually going to meet the stated commitment by B.C.

Housing of not only the supported side but make certain that the

community was not going to be impacted by the addition of another

complex and just more crime in another area in the city.

I know that that’s consistent with what I’ve heard and seen. I

mean, we only have to look at the issues faced in Victoria. When I first

got elected, I bought a home….

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

B. Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Just to finish that thought, I did want to talk about Beacon Hill

Park. I’ll come back to that when I resume speaking.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue and make a motion

to adjourn debate.

B. Stewart moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.