Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 28, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 191

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Glenn Henry

E. Ross

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 23 — Mental Health Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Day of Mourning for workers

G. Kyllo

A. Mercier

Yom Hashoah and Holocaust remembrance

M. Lee

Volunteerism

B. Anderson

Worker health and safety and Day of Mourning for

workers

A. Olsen

Chinese-Canadian spring show in Tri-Cities

F. Donnelly

Oral Questions

Cost of living and affordability issues

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

Affordable housing and real estate investment

trusts

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Service model change for children with support

needs and consultation process

T. Halford

Hon. M. Dean

Death of youth in care and oversight of contracted

child protection services

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

T. Stone

Reports from Committees

Reforming the Police Act Special Committee,

Transforming Policing and Community Safety in British Columbia , April

D. Routley

D. Davies

A. Olsen

R. Glumac

Personal Statements

Service to Legislature and message of

appreciation

S. Cadieux

Tributes

Stephanie Cadieux

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Furstenau

S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy

Hon. G. Heyman

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: K. Kirkpatrick.

[10:05 a.m.]

Tributes

GLENN HENRY

E. Ross: Hemaaas, Musmagilth, Gukaloot.

Early this morning my wife lost her father. My children lost their

grandfather. My grandchildren lost their great-grandfather. It’s

suspected it was due to heart problems, but he was definitely battling

dementia, which is a cruel condition for victims as well as their family

and friends. Dementia has been described as the long goodbye.

Glenn Henry was born November 16, 1945, and passed away April 28,

2022, at 12:30 a.m. in Kitimat General Hospital.

Rest in peace, Glenn Henry.

Introductions by Members

L. Doerkson: I wanted to take a moment to introduce a friend of mine from Williams

Lake, Massimo Calabrese, who is the vaccination kid from Williams Lake. He’s

done great work in our community.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m not sure if he’s tuned in yet, but I want to honour a constituent

of mine, Don Hann. Don is finally retiring after 40 years of serving at the

city hall child care centre, the city hall day care centre. He is believed

to be the longest-serving man in a child care facility in Canada, but he’s

also remarkable in that he started serving as a gay man in a child care

facility at a time when stigma, homophobia and hatred targeted people like

him.

He’s a remarkable man. He has served with the Gay Alliance Towards

Equality, rallied here outside of the Legislature, in Vancouver and many

other places for equality for gay people. I just want to honour him and his

40-year career and dedication to the children of this province.

S. Cadieux: I am pleased today to be able to welcome in the gallery a friend,

Sharon Crowson. She’s a friend today. She was my constituency assistant from

2009 to 2018, and I am very happy to have her with us today.

As well, watching from back home in anticipation of a statement I’ll

make later this morning, are my constituency assistants that are serving me

well in South Surrey right now, Michelle Moore and Ekamjit Ghuman.

Will the

House please make them all very welcome.

B. Banman: I just had the pleasure of meeting and greeting 40 students from an

elementary school in my riding, Dormick Elementary. They are joined by four

teachers: Ms. Illes, Mr. Hipwell, Ms. Riddell and Mrs. Donovan. They’re on

their way here.

I hope they get here soon. They may get a chance to watch question

period, and I promised them that we’d be on our best behaviour for them

today.

Please, a warm round of applause for Dormick Elementary.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Brin Slydell. He’s in the gallery today.

He’s shadowing me today. He’s a grade 11 student at Cowichan High. He loves

to rock climb and is on the competitive team. He tells me that the access to

Mount Prevost School is fantastic. He’s also part of the leadership group at

his high school. He’s part of the St. John’s Ambulance brigade and has his

first aid credentials.

He’s also part of a group of youth called CSIV. They stand for

conflict resolution, sustainability, human rights and sustainable

development, and there’s a lot of learning through play with younger people.

He’s interested in studying psychology when he graduates.

Would the House

please make this formidable, impressive young man most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — MENTAL HEALTH

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act,

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Mental Health

Act.

Responding to reports and recommendations by the Representative

for Children and Youth and the Ombudsperson, this bill will lay the

foundation for an independent rights advice service for individuals who

are involuntarily admitted to designated mental health facilities under

the Mental Health Act. The role of the rights adviser will be to support

involuntary patients and explain their rights under the Mental Health

Act.

These amendments to the Mental Health Act will set out the

patient’s right to speak with the rights adviser and specify when they

must be informed of this right.

The bill will also set out the duties of rights advisers and the

responsibilities of directors of designated mental health facilities to

facilitate access to the service.

Finally, the amendments will grant authority to make a range of

regulations respecting the rights advice service.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Mental Health Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS

G. Kyllo: In 1991, the Parliament of Canada passed the Workers Mourning Day

Act, marking April 28 as a national day of mourning. The day of mourning

has since spread to more than 100 countries and is recognized as

International Workers Memorial Day.

On July 12 of last year, British Columbians were shocked and

devastated when a catastrophic crane collapsed in downtown Kelowna,

claiming the lives of five workers. This horrific tragedy was a grim

reminder of the dangers British Columbians face every day as they head

off to work. Last year alone, 161 people in B.C. died from work-related

injuries or illnesses.

Today workplaces across this province and around the world will

take a moment to remember and honour those who have lost their lives or

have had their lives changed forever from injuries or illnesses

sustained in the workplace. We remember the grief and loss of the

families whose loved ones left for work one day, never to return

home.

No worker should ever feel unsafe in their workplace, and while

today is about remembering those who lost their lives, it is also about

strengthening our resolve and commitment to build safer, healthier and

more supportive workplaces each and every day. We must also ensure that

our workplaces offer the proper care and services to employees when they

are subject to a workplace injury or an illness.

It is the responsibility of all levels of government to ensure

those supportive resources are available. Together, let’s build safer

and more supportive workplaces for all British Columbians.

A. Mercier: Today is the National Day of Mourning. Today we reflect on the

tragedy of lives lost and forever changed by workplace illness and

injury.

Tragically, in 2021, 161 people died from work-related illnesses

or injuries in British Columbia. That includes 53 workers who lost their

battle with asbestosis and 46 who succumbed to other illnesses such as

COVID-19. I just want to say that for many workers, particularly in the

construction industry, asbestos exposure that happened decades ago is

still a ticking time bomb and a cloud that hangs over their

lives.

That number also includes 15 workers who died as a result of motor

vehicle crashes and 47 others who suffered traumatic injuries, such as

the horrific crane collapse in Kelowna, which claimed five lives and two

brothers — one family that lost two sons. We just learned yesterday of

the unfortunate passing of Lonnie Hryhroka on Vancouver Island, a logger

and United Steelworker.

All of these deaths, all of them, were preventable. That makes it

all the more tragic.

This year we’re marking a terrible anniversary, the 10th

anniversary of the devastating sawmill explosions at the Babine Forest

Products mill near Burns Lake and the Lakeland sawmill in Prince George.

Four people were killed and 44 others were injured in those disasters,

and our province was shaken to its core.

I offer my deepest condolences to all of those who have lost a

loved one, colleague or a friend and to those who continue to suffer

from illness or injury caused by work.

[10:15 a.m.]

I ask this House to join me in recommitting to workplace safety.

Everyone has a role to play. Every worker who goes to work deserves and

has the right to come home at the end of their shift.

YOM HASHOAH AND

HOLOCAUST

REMEMBRANCE

M. Lee: Today I rise to mark Yom HaShoah, Holocaust and Heroism

Remembrance Day. We commemorate the heroes and righteous among nations

who stood up to oppose the most vile hatred and oppression and remember

the millions who were persecuted and killed during one of the most

heinous acts in human history.

We make a solemn promise to never forget and never again allow

such horrific actions to take place. This is a responsibility that we

all must carry with us not only today, but every day, and one which we

must be better at upholding. As soldiers, at this very moment, commit

war crimes, once again, in Europe, and as right here in Canada, we see

yet another year of record rises in anti-Semitism, we have to do

better.

The Jewish community here in B.C. experienced an increase of 111

percent in anti-Semitic incidents between 2020 and 2021. Across Canada,

the number of violent anti-Jewish hate crimes rose by 733

percent.

Declaring “never again” is not enough. Standing up against hatred,

violence and anti-Semitism requires bra­very and a commitment to

action. One thing that we should take action on here in B.C. is the

adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, following the lead of

the federal government, who is standing up to protect the Jewish

community from this rising tide of hatred and discrimination.

I have previously stated in this Legislative Assembly my personal

support for the adoption of this IHRA definition, and I continue to urge

our provincial government to adopt this definition as it considers

legislation to address hatred and racism.

As we reflect on those who risked their lives to save others from

the Holocaust, demonstrating love and compassion in the face of

darkness, their heroic actions are a reminder that we can and must

always stand up for what is right. By carrying on that legacy of bravery

and hope, we can honour the heroes and survivors and build a better and

safer world for us all.

VOLUNTEERISM

B. Anderson:

This week we celebrate. Celebrate who?

Incredible

volunteers for all that they do.

When I started my list, it just

kept growing.

Volunteers do so much, and it’s really

showing.

Empathy and action is this year’s theme.

Volunteers

bring heart and build the dream.

With compassion, they strengthen

community.

Whether you’re young or classic, it’s a great

opportunity.

Here is a huge shoutout to the generously

hearted.

The list is long, so let’s get started.

Service clubs

build community and pivot at the unplanned.

Rotary, the Lions and

the Eagles all deserve a hand.

Some folks prefer to break a sweat

and build trails,

while others bake bread or serve hot meals.

In rural areas, even our firefighters are volunteers.

They

attend all sorts of calls and deserve our cheers.

If you like to

shred the gnar, I have a job for you.

The Salmo Ski Hill relies on

volunteers for all that they do too.

If you get lost, search and

rescue has your back.

Just leave prepared and be sure you’re well

packed.

If you’re a lover of music, poetry, books or

art,

libraries and festivals are a great place to start.

Some

folks give back to community by running their hall.

These centres

bring folks together and are enjoyed by all.

Dr. Nick Sparrow is a

KERPA volunteer star.

He attends critical 911 calls both near and

far.

If championing the environment is more your style,

try

deep canvassing with the EcoSociety and flash that smile.

Many

volunteers want to help with cats and dogs.

Others work with sports

teams to improve their odds.

The role of committees and boards is to

oversee,

and political volunteers bring us to victory.

If the

House could come together to give volunteers a clap,

I will sit down

and call it a wrap.

The volunteers in our communities are certainly

keepers.

But before I go, I would like to say thank you, hon.

Speaker.

[10:20 a.m.]

WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY AND

DAY OF MOURNING FOR

WORKERS

A. Olsen: On the National Day of Mourning, we re­member workers who

have died, were injured or became ill from their job. We recommit to

protecting workers and preventing further workplace

tragedies.

This is also a day to ask ourselves: are we doing enough to

improve health and safety in the workplace? Are we providing adequate

care to those who have lost a loved one or fair compensation and

effective rehabilitation to those who have suffered an injury or illness

so they can return safely to their workplace and be productive in their

employment?

I’ll never forget the conversations I had with an injured

construction worker in the steam room at our local recreation centre. He

shared with me that he was being pressured back to work by WorkSafeBC,

even though he still had limited functionality in his hand. He was

worried about his future, worried about the lack of strength in his hand

and the vulnerability that that could create for him on the

worksite.

There have been a number of reports recently about how to best

reform WorkSafeBC to provide fair and just compensation to injured

workers and greater accountability at WorkSafeBC. The most important for

updating the Workers Compensation Act is the 2019 Patterson report, with

100 recommendations that require our im­mediate

attention.

I know some members of this House have family members who have

been impacted by workplace injury and illness, and we’ve all heard from

constituents who are seeking fair and just compensation and greater

accountability for WorkSafeBC.

Let’s take this opportunity to recommit to addressing the

important recommendations in the Patterson report and meeting our

responsibility to workers who’ve been disabled on the job.

CHINESE-CANADIAN SPRING SHOW

IN TRI-CITIES

F. Donnelly: Dàjiā hǎo. I recently

hosted a video program celebrating the beginning of spring and featuring

performances from talented members of the Chinese-Canadian community in

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

Spring is an important time in Chinese culture, signifying new

beginnings, new journeys and fresh ideas. Originally scheduled as a

lunar new year event, we quickly pivoted because of COVID and created

our spring show.

I’d like to thank those who made it possible: my co-host, Jean

Liang, a well-known community volunteer in the Tri-Cities;Tri-City

Chinese Community Society executive members Linda Li, Ernest Woo and

Matthew Wong, who outlined their valuable volunteer work in the

community; Golden Maple Arts and Culture Association dancers, led by

teacher Yao and coordinator Jong — Tina Wong, Ming Jang, Linda Chu,

Emily Soo and Hoy Ling; Golden Maple models, led by teacher Jane Soo —

Amanda Yan, Fang Lin, Jean Leung, Cho Pe Pi, Fanny Chen, Anna Yoo, Diana

Yan, Lily Lee, Shirlyn Lieu, Arahshi Chan, Lena Chen, Cathy Ye, Tintin

Chen and Xiana Jo.

Special guests who sent a video message included the Premier of

B.C., Kwikwetlem First Nation Chief Ed Hall, Members of Parliament

Jagmeet Singh and Bonita Zarrillo and provincial members of Finance,

Child Care, Trade, Infrastructure, and Advanced Education and Skills

Training.

Thanks also to my constituency staff, Perisa Chan, Linda

Asgeirsson and Kaitlyn Gorman, and to Geoff Scott and Hussein Alachfne

of the Tri-Cities Community TV, who produced our 40-minute show. Many

have already seen our bilingual program, but if you haven’t, please

visit my Facebook page to view it.

I ask all members of the House to join me in thanking all those

who made this show possible.

Xièxiè.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Chair would like to thank the Members for Shuswap,

Langley and Saanich North and the Islands for remembering all those

workers who lost their lives while working or who were

injured.

Let’s have a moment of silence in their memory.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

[10:25 a.m.]

Oral Questions

COST OF LIVING

AND AFFORDABILITY

ISSUES

M. Bernier: Alexander Kilpatrick is in his last year of medical residency, and

his wife is a middle school teacher who is pregnant with their third

child. They want to set up a family medical practice right here in

Victoria but fear that they will have to leave town because they can no

longer afford to live here.

“It’s scary looking at what the price points

are for rentals and for owning a house here. Even for a family physician

in the community, it’s a bit scary to look at not just the rental market

but the longer term as well.”

What does the Finance Minister have to say to this family? They’re

just trying to help address the doctor shortage. They want to stay here

in Victoria. What is she going to do to help the Kilpatricks afford to

live here?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member highlighting this particular situation.

It’s one that we are certainly seeing not just here in British Columbia.

We’re seeing it right across Canada. We’re seeing it right around the

globe. We are seeing people being more and more challenged as we see the

inflation rate continue to rise.

What I also want to say to the member is that since 2017, we have

been paying very particular attention on the housing file. We are

continuing to work with local governments to get more product, and we

have brought forward this $7 billion to build the kind of housing that

British Columbians need. It’s a ten-year plan. We have over 32,000 homes

right now being built, and people have been moving in. We’re going to

continue to do that important work.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, supplemental.

M. Bernier: Look, the NDP might mean well, but that does nothing for the one

in five British Columbians right now that don’t have a family doctor.

Here’s somebody trying to help this situation. Housing has never been

more unaffordable, and now even a doctor and a schoolteacher can’t

afford to live here.

Yet just this week the Minister of Finance admitted that not only

will her cooling-off period idea do nothing — absolutely nothing — to

address affordability; struggling homebuyers actually might risk losing

their down payment or deposit. So NDP fees and penalties will not help

young first-time homebuyers afford to get into a home.

When will the minister do actual constructive issues to help

people deliver on real solutions so people like the Kilpatricks can

afford to stay here, can afford to live in Victoria and can afford to

open up a family practice to help people?

Hon. S. Robinson: You know, I’m listening very carefully to the member’s question.

We have certainly inherited a challenging housing situation. We have

been here for a number of years, working diligently on the housing file,

which is why we brought forward $7 billion initially in 2017, and we

were rolling out that kind of housing.

We’ve done more than that. We’ve started the Housing­Hub,

and $2 billion is available for construction financing that is

delivering thousands and thousands of homes for middle-income British

Columbians.

If the previous government had started on that track, we wouldn’t

be in this situation right now. I do think British Columbians appreciate

that building housing does take time. It doesn’t happen overnight. We’ve

been working diligently with local governments. We’re continuing to make

progress on our collaboration with local governments to move more

quickly.

Here in Victoria — I have to give them a shout-out — they are

moving and changing how they are moving quickly to allow certain kinds

of housing to be built with­out it getting caught up. We’re

hearing other local governments here on the Island interested in

following their lead. That’s making a difference.

It’s through collaboration with local governments. It’s working

with B.C. Housing. It’s working collectively with the development

community. They are very excited about what we are doing at the

HousingHub, and there’s more that’s going to be coming online to help

relieve some of this pressure.

[10:30 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, we’ve just heard how high rental costs and high inflation

rates are impacting the ability to even open a family practice in

Victoria. But now we also have a new report that says those same factors

are going to dramatically impact low-income people in B.C. the most over

this coming year and the next couple of years.

The average household this year will be facing an extra $2,000 a

year in interest payments as interest rates start to rise. It has now

been a week since the Premier said he had directed the Finance Minister

to “bring forward initiatives to assist with inflation. We’ll see how

that goes.”

Well, the people would like to know: what are these new

initiatives, will they offset the new $2,000 a year that is going to

impact people’s homes, and when will the public actually see these

initiatives?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we’ve been reducing costs for average British Columbians

since 2017. This isn’t a new action for us. We have been at it since we

formed government.

We started with eliminating MSP. Remember that re­gressive

tax that the folks on the other side doubled? The other thing we did is

we brought forward the child opportunity benefit. That’s up to $2,600 a

year for a family with two children. That’s making a difference for

British Columbians every day.

We’ve lowered car insurance. Remember that dumpster fire that the

other folks set on fire? We took care of that. Not only have we been

able to give several rebates because it has been fixed, but people are

paying, on average, $500 a year less on their car insurance.

Free transit for children. Again, that’s saving up to $650 a year

for British Columbians. We reduced child care costs. By cutting fees by

50 percent by the end of this year for those children under the age of

five, that is a huge, huge savings for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister fails to point out that since 2017, we now have

well over 50 percent of the population of B.C. with less than $200 at

the end of the month to pay their bills. That’s because the cost of

living continues to skyrocket each and every month, with inflation at

its highest level in over 30 years. Everything is costing more — gas,

rent, groceries. The NDP have done absolutely nothing.

Now we know that extra $200 a month is going to be wiped out with

this extra yearly cost in the new report. This is what the report says:

“The bottom line is low-income Canadians will be most squeezed by rate

and price hikes, a burden that will only grow heavier into 2023.” These

people are trying to pay bills today. They’re trying to pay bills into

Is the minister going to reveal what initiatives she’s been

directed to undertake by the Premier to address inflation, or is she

going to continue to let low-income families suffer?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have to say it’s sort of surprising to hear the folks on the

other side talk about low-income families when they kept minimum wage

from growing, when they refused…. Even the seniors supplement — they did

nothing with it for years. We have doubled it. We’ve increased social

assistance rates.

I have to say, and the members opposite know, that these are

global challenges. It’s not just here in B.C. It’s across Canada. It’s

around the world. There are significant supply chain issues. And yes, we

are concerned about how it’s affecting people here in British Columbia.

There is no doubt about it. There is concern about the rising costs of

necessities like food and housing. We know that it’s hardest on people

who are already struggling to make ends meet.

The members opposite also know full well that the federal

government and the Bank of Canada have the tools to impact inflation

directly, but we’re going to keep doing what we can in order to help

reduce costs for British Columbians.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT

TRUSTS

A. Olsen: This B.C. NDP government hopes that corporations like Telus will

step in and fix the growing pri­mary health care crisis through

their efforts that they frame as social capitalism — really just

profiteering from the delivery of health care.

Now let’s look at another crisis that’s facing British Columbians:

housing. Renters are suffering. B.C. has the high­est rents in

Canada. In Vancouver and Victoria, rent has jumped 20 percent just in

the last six months. There is not enough supply, and what is available

is excruciatingly expensive.

[10:35 a.m.]

I was stunned to find an

article that assured me that if I can’t

afford housing, I should just buy into a REIT. A REIT stands for real

estate investment trust. It’s a corporation that owns and operates

“income-producing real estate.” Articles pumping REITs state that

shareholders can have all the profits of being a landlord without any of

the inconveniences, such as “hard-to-please tenants.”

Here’s the kicker. Investors who purchased Canadian residential

REITs since 2012 have received a 220 percent return.

To the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Housing, real estate

investment trusts are generating huge returns for their shareholders by

financializing our housing stock, making housing more and more

unaffordable. What is this government doing to remedy this

problem?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for raising this important issue. We’ve

seen really escalated REIT activity in the CRD, in the Victoria area. We

expect to see that accelerating in different parts of the

province.

REITs have unfair tax benefits that other British Columbians don’t

enjoy when it comes to buying housing. These are tax benefits that are

provided by the federal government. I’ve expressed my concern directly

to the federal housing minister about this issue. He says that the

federal government is going to be addressing that issue, and I

encouraged them to do it quickly.

The financialization of our housing market — we know where that

goes. We’ve seen it in 2008 in the United States, when investment in

housing gets out of hand and it’s not adequately policed. What we need

to be investing in is in the building of affordable housing, which is

what our government is doing. We can’t have it undermined by federal tax

benefits for these investment vehicles that make life less affordable

for British Columbians.

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

A. Olsen: It becomes problematic when we’re building more housing supply yet

that housing supply is vulnerable to corporations purchasing it and

driving the cost of rent up for British Columbians. Researchers at the

University of Waterloo estimate that between 20 to 30 percent of

Canada’s rental apartment market is owned by institutional landlords,

REITs. They own nearly 200,000 rental units countrywide.

CBC’s The Fifth Estate reported on the devastating impact

that REITs are having for renters. There was story after story of people

losing their homes due to these corporations buying aging apartment

blocks and renovicting them. One quote stuck with me, and it goes back

to the so-called social capitalism that I raised yesterday in question

period and this morning.

Michael Brooks, CEO of REALPAC, an association representing the

largest institutional landlords across the country, was willing to be

more honest about what the business model actually is: “Everyone in the

private sector is self-interested in maintaining and growing their

income, and they all want to be seen as contributing to the solution and

not being part of the problem. However, they’ve got their own

obligations. They’ve got their own investors, their own pensioners to

fund. They’ve got to manage costs. Deeply affordable housing is a public

good. The private sector is not primarily in the business of providing a

public good.”

To the Minister of Housing, it is one step to talk to the federal

government about changing the tax laws. What is this provincial

government doing with the authorities that we have to ensure that REITs,

as the minister said, do not continue to buy up rental blocks here in

the greater Victoria area, the capital region, the Lower Mainland and

across British Columbia?

Hon. D. Eby: In his

preamble, the member made a number of assertions about the

Minister of Health and Telus. I just want to remind the member and all

members of this House that the Minister of Health has been on the front

lines of ensuring our public health care system is protected from

profiteering. He has been a champion. He has brought into force rules

around private delivery of health care and charging additional fees that

were not enforced before. I just wanted to address that

issue.

I couldn’t agree more with the member’s concern about speculation,

financialization of our housing market. It also complicates our job at

the provincial level when we’re looking at partnering.

[10:40 a.m.]

Part of my mandate letter is to work with the non-profit housing

associations to find opportunities to acquire privately owned rental

housing, to ensure affordability and, where it needs to be redeveloped,

that it’s redeveloped in a way that protects tenants and increases the

number of units available on sites. That makes it harder for the

province when we are competing with money from around the

world.

We started this conversation in 2016 around international money

coming into our housing market. I know the opposition at the time was

concerned about it. They seem less interested now about speculation in

the housing market than they used to be, but we remain concerned about

it. It’s not just international money coming in through individual

buyers; it’s money from across North America, through REITs. We need the

federal government to step up on this, and we will continue to pressure

them.

We’re also putting in place rules for landlords that operate in

B.C., whether they’re REITs or anyone else, restricting their ability to

evict people for renovictions, demovictions. We put an enforcement team

in place at the residential tenancy branch to ensure the rules are

followed, and we will keep doing that work to protect

tenants.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE FOR

CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

T. Halford: B.C. Autism Advocacy has asked parents to describe how they felt

about the NDP’s consultation on the autism funding clawback. “The most

commonly submitted response from our survey about how parents and

service providers felt about the information being given was

‘traumatizing,’ and the most commonly referred to word regarding your

small table discussions was ‘gaslighting.’”

Instead of gaslighting service providers, caregivers and parents,

will this minister actually listen to families and stop this

clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: It is very important to be listening to families. I’ve been

hearing from families for many years now — my ministry has for many

years — that so many children have been left behind for too long. So we

started a formal engagement across the province in 2019. We’ve continued

that ever since, and we are continuing to speak to families. We will

continue to engage with them and to work in partnership with families of

all children and youth with support needs and with service providers and

with community agencies and with communities and with Indigenous

partners as well.

We are absolutely committed to working with everybody to make sure

that we get this transformation right. We know that we need to build a

system based on needs of children and youth across this province, and we

need to be doing that to ensure that all children and youth with support

needs across that diverse community are able to thrive.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: Parents have been trying to meet with this NDP government for six

months, and this minister has not been listening. In fact, parents will

be going to protest NDP offices tomorrow. I’ll read another quote:

“Withholding information and not providing answers to our questions

provides further damage, unnecessary stress and anxiety on families,

caregivers, parents and children.”

When will this minister stop with the games and actually start

listening to the families, to the parents of these children, and end

this clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you for the question. We have been meeting with families.

We’ve been hearing from families for years, telling us that for far too

long, too many children have been left behind. We’ve done engagement

with families. There’s a survey that’s open at the moment in five

different languages. We’re finding different ways to engage with

families and to listen to them. We’ll continue to do that.

I will be making sure that I’m available to speak to families, and

I know that my staff has done so as well. I’ve continued to meet with

advocacy groups and service groups over the last 18 months, since I have

the honour of being in this position.

We need to make sure we’re getting the system right. We also have

further opportunities, because the provincial rollout is in two years,

so we will be implementing early implementation areas. That will give us

further opportunity to engage with families and with service providers

and with Indigenous communities and with community agencies and other

partners to make sure that we are learning and that we are able to build

a successful implementation of this new system.

[10:45 a.m.]

We need to deliver a system of services based on need so that

children are not left behind, they’re able to meet their goals and

milestones, and they’re able to fulfil their potential.

DEATH OF YOUTH IN CARE AND

OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTED

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

S. Bond: Even in this Legislature today, the minister did not listen to the

words of parents. The words that parents used regarding this process is

that they feel traumatized — it’s a very serious word — and that

gaslighting is taking place. The minister needs to engage in a

meaningful way with parents of children with autism.

Today I also want to raise another issue with this minister — a

heartbreaking, horrific, tragic situation. Seventeen-year-old Traevon

Chalifoux-Desjarlais died on Sep­tember 18, 2020, in a

government-contracted care home. It took four days — four days — for

Traevon to be found in the closet.

I’m not asking about the specific details of this horrific

situation, but British Columbians do deserve detailed answers about this

government’s lack of oversight of contracted services.

What specific changes have been implemented to ensure that this

type of a horrific tragedy never happens again?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. I agree this is a tragic

situation. My heart goes out to the family, and I send my condolences to

everybody who knew this young man.

As the member acknowledges, it’s not possible for me to speak on

particular situations of a unique individual. However, I can assure the

member and this House that whenever a tragedy like this happens, the

ministry does conduct a review, and our goal is always to make sure that

children and youth are kept safe and are kept healthy.

When there is a review, if there are deficiencies, then an action

plan is created, and that is monitored very closely by the provincial

director of child welfare. Our aim is to make sure that all children and

youth are able to stay safe and well cared for and healthy in our

care.

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

S. Bond: Time is of the essence. It is incomprehensible to imagine how a

family must feel when a 17-year-old is found dead in a closet. There

have been reports this week that those charged with looking after

Traevon were verbally abusive, neglectful, and that he was often left

alone in a small bedroom for days at a time.

Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs says: “There

were warning signs — the failing audits. The ministry should have

intervened with that agency and got things back on track. Those red

flags were there. They could have saved his life if they intervened

earlier.”

Again, I understand the process of review, but I also understand a

17-year-old young man was found dead in a contracted care home. That

requires action now. What specific steps has the ministry taken or put

in place to ensure that there is protection in place for British

Columbia’s most vulnerable children?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question, because this is

absolutely critical. It’s very important that children and youth who are

in our care receive the best care and are nurtured and supported to

fulfil their potential and that they’re safe and that they’re

healthy.

[10:50 a.m.]

We’ve known for many years that the system of in-care services has

not been adequate — that we need to make sure that we transform the

system so that when children and youth do come into the care system,

they actually receive in-care services that meet their needs, that are

designed to meet and respond to why they’ve come into care and are able

to help them achieve their goals and help them to create a future for

themselves that is healthy and that is safe.

We’ve been working with our partners. We’re going to transform the

system across the whole of the province. We’re making sure that changes

are considered and that all services delivered are putting the child and

youth at the centre of their care. We’re making sure that all children

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

their culture and making sure that we minimize any disruption in the

system, because we’re continuing to care for vulnerable children and

youth while we’re making this significant provincial change.

K. Kirkpatrick: Reviews are too late, and actions are overdue. This minister

continues to have the same answer regardless of what the question is. Of

course we want to have children at the centre, but this is about a

systemic failure in the child welfare system under this

government.

The independent Representative for Children and Youth says what

happened to Traevon is a “canary in the coal mine” and that things are

worse than ever. I will quote her: “We hear from youth living in group

homes all the time, including where perpetrators of sexual abuse are

housed with victims of sexual abuse. This is a system that continues to

fail them.”

Can the minister tell the House why the system, after all the

warnings and all the reports, continues to fail these vulnerable

children?

Hon. M. Dean: It is really important to make sure that the system serves our

vulnerable children and youth. We know that children and youth who are

in the care system have been traumatized for some reason. We want to

make sure that we put them at the centre and that we provide them with

trauma-informed, nurturing, caring support and help launch them into a

successful future where they’re able to thrive.

We know challenges with the in-care system have been building up

over decades. This is something I know the Representative for Children

and Youth has worked on in prior roles that she has had, and so have I.

Now we have made considerable improvements over the last three years,

and we are undertaking a provincial transformation that will make a

difference to the lives of children and youth, because the home that

they will be provided with, the care that they will be provided with,

will actually be responsive to their needs.

What we’re doing is making sure that there are no new agencies

added to the list of homes without the explicit approval of the

provincial director of child welfare. We’ve taken steps and measures in

terms of ensuring the quality in all of the homes that provide in-care

services. We’re also really working very hard on making sure that

children and youth are able to stay within family, within

communities.

We have been increasing out-of-care placement, where significant

action has been taken in relation to a child or youth. We’ve actually

been able to go to their community and say: “Is there an auntie, is

there a grandma, is there a friend of the family who is able to take

care of this person while we build a safety plan?” We are making a

difference in the lives of children and youth.

T. Stone: Well, the 2019 government response to the Auditor General report

highlighted a review by Ernst and Young related to contracted care

homes. Yet I have here a briefing note dated January 10, 2020, for the

minister that says that there has been a lack of progress because “the

Ernst and Young contract was cancelled due to the recent expenditure

management initiative.” Later that year Traevon died in a

government-contracted care home.

Now, the government response to the Auditor General report also

said this: “As of June 2019, social workers have confirmed that each

child and youth has been seen and their homes visited within the past

three months as required by policy.”

[10:55 a.m.]

Yet here we have an audit, a copy of an audit that was conducted

between October 2018 to July 2019, that proves that that simply was not

true and that the government has actually failed to meet even this basic

standard. Page 23 of the audit says: “The compliance rate for this

measure was 7 percent.” And 30 percent of the time, there was actually

zero contact for 12 months, which is in complete violation of the

policy.

My question to the minister would be this. Can she tell this House

and tell British Columbians why this Ernst and Young contract was

cancelled in the first place, and can she explain how this government

would allow — how she would allow, how her ministry would allow — a 7

percent compliance rate when it comes to vulnerable children?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you for the question. I can reassure this House that work

has continued. We’re working with partners. We’re working with youth

organizations who represent children and youth who have been in care to

make sure that we do continue this transformation of the in-care system.

This work has already started, and it will continue.

As I said, we’re continuing to care for vulnerable children and

youth, so we need to do this in an incremental way. We’re building

services and working with the sector, working with partner agencies to

make sure that when a child has to come into care, they’re brought into

a home that’s meeting their needs and that the needs of that child and

youth are actually put first in that placement.

Another transformation that my ministry is undertaking is with

regard to the quality assurance system. We know what we need to be doing

is monitoring outcomes and not looking at statistics and numbers and

compliance. What is really important to us as a ministry is that we see

that children are safe, that they’re developing, that they’re thriving,

that their well-being is secured, that they’re connected to family and

community and culture, that their cultural needs and spiritual needs are

met.

That’s what we’re doing. We are actually redesigning our tools of

how we evaluate services that are delivered to children and youth, so

we’re focusing on those outcomes for those children and youth and that

we’re able to launch them. If they have had to come into the care

system, we can launch them into brighter and better futures.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

REFORMING THE POLICE ACT

SPECIAL COMMITTEE

D. Routley: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

on Reforming the Police Act for the third session of the 42nd parliament

entitled Transforming Policing and Community Safety in British

Columbia .

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

Motion approved.

D. Routley: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

D. Routley: In moving the adoption of the report, I would like to make some

comments.

The Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act was appointed to

undertake a broad inquiry into policing and public safety amidst

increasingly widespread awareness of systemic racism in policing, demand

for improved police accountability and questions about the

appropriateness of police responses to mental health, addictions and

other complex social issues.

Over the past 15 months, the committee consulted widely and met

with ministries, oversight agencies, statutory officers, local

governments, community organizations and a range of experts. The

committee also issued a survey to hear the personal and front-line

experiences of British Columbians. In total, 411 individuals and

organizations from across the province made submissions and

presentations the committee, and over 1,400 individuals responded to the

survey.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere

appreciation to everyone who took the time to participate. Your ideas

and experiences highlighted the need for transformational change in

policing and community safety in B.C. and directly informed the

committee’s 11 key recommendations.

[11:00 a.m.]

Our report outlines a vision for policing and community safety

that is rooted in decolonization, anti-racism, community and

accountability. To achieve this vision, there will need to be major

changes to the structure and delivery of police services, including

provincial and regional policing, oversight, accountability, training

and education, and response to mental health and complex social

issues.

We recognize the challenging and essential work performed by

police officers. Structures and systems are fragmented, and police have

increasingly been tasked with responding to issues for which they are

not the appropriate service provider.

Committee members agree that police should not be the primary or

only first responders in these situations and emphasize the need for

collaboration across police, health, mental health and social sectors to

ensure a continuum of response and support, including appropriate first

response.

Our recommendations aim to provide police officers with the tools

and support they need to ensure British Columbians have equitable access

to high-quality police and community safety services in every community

across the province. An integral component of this will be addressing

systemic racism in policing and the lack of trust between many

individuals, communities and the police.

Police culture is at the core of the committee’s recommendations,

and police education and training must be enhanced and standardized to

shift this culture and rebuild trust in police and public

safety.

Mandatory and ongoing anti-racism and cultural competency training

must be delivered in a meaningful way. Disaggregated race-based and

demographic information must be collected and reported, and police

services must review and amend policies and procedures.

Further, Indigenous communities need to have direct input into the

structure and governance of police services, including more

self-administered police services.

Some of our recommendations can be immediately actioned, and

others will take many years and successive parliaments. In reflecting on

the enormity of this task, the committee recognizes the collaboration

that brought us to our vision for community safety and

policing.

To achieve the transformative change British Columbians have asked

for, we encourage and call on all Members of the Legislative Assembly

and government to continue in this spirit.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee

members, especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Peace River North,

for their support and work on this committee and for their thoughtful

contributions and discussions during deliberations as we reflected on

the large volume of powerful and emotional input that we

received.

I think I can speak for all committee members when I say that

serving on this committee has been a remarkable and meaningful

experience for all of us. “Time flies when you’re having fun,” they say.

At least that’s the rumour. I’ve been here in this building for 17

years. Committee work has always been my favourite aspect of service

here. It is the best of what we do. I appreciate all of the members from

all parties for their contributions. I think we had the perfect mix of

people for the job. Thank you all very much.

As members of this House are likely aware, there is a considerable

amount of work behind the scenes to support a committee of this scope.

On behalf of the committee, I also would like to acknowledge and extend

our appreciation to Legislative Assembly staff.

From the Parliamentary Committees Office, thank you to Karan

Riarh, Katey Stickle, Mary Newell, Natalie Bea­ton, Jenny Byford,

Jesse Gordon and Emma Curtis.

From IT, thank you to Darren Parfitt for keeping the lights

on.

From Hansard Services, thank you to Mike Baer, Amanda

Heffelfinger, Dwight Schmidt, Billy Young and the entire Hansard

broadcasting, transcribing and publishing teams.

Mr. Speaker, we heard from many presenters, and the all-party

committee members unanimously agreed to our recommendations that, we

believe, reflect what we heard from presenters.

D. Davies: I want to thank the Chair of the committee, the MLA for

Nanaimo–North Cowichan, for his leadership and work on this committee as

well. It has been a great honour to serve as a member and the Deputy

Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act for the last

18 months.

[11:05 a.m.]

It has been challenging, but it has been very important work that

this committee has done. Over the last year and a half we have heard

hundreds of witness statements from people from all across the province

of British Columbia — police agencies, social service providers,

government agencies, municipalities, the general public, those with

lived experience as well as diverse and marginalized

populations.

I’m proud to have served on this committee and worked with the

members. We have all worked very well together. I want to recognize the

member for Surrey-Guildford for his two-minute statement yesterday,

which I think really captured a lot of the collaboration that our

committee has done.

We have undertaken this work that is meant to provide safety for

all British Columbians across this province. We also recognize the

tremendous impact that mental health and addictions has had on

policing.

I would like to thank my fellow committee members. The Chair has

already recognized them, as well, as well as the incredible staff, Karan

and her team. You really get to know a lot of these people when you’re

sitting for so many hours, and it gives you a whole new perspective of

the legislative staff. Thank you, as well, for that — as well as Hansard

and all the other people that make these committees really tick. Thank

you.

I also want to thank everybody who took the time to share with us.

More than 400 witness statements. That was a lot of people, a lot of

communities, a lot of organizations. Detailing these incredibly personal

and often emotional experiences was not easy, so I recognize all of

those who have stepped forward and spoken candidly to shape meaningful

change in our province.

I am proud of the resilience of this committee, as there have been

countless challenges and extremely difficult moments, but we had a

shared goal in mind. We were appointed at a moment in time when there is

increased dialogue around systemic racism in policing, police

accountability and questions about the appropriateness of police

responding to mental health and addictions and other complex issues. We

know that this isn’t the best response, but often in communities, it is

the only response.

Over the last 18 months, it has become clear that transformative

change is required to achieve a new vision of policing and community

safety and, central to it, conversations and actions that focus on

community and accountability to those communities.

The recommendations in this report are bold, very bold. But they

have the best interests of British Columbians at the forefront. As the

report states, this work is not done with just tabling this report.

There are incredible challenges that we all know too well around mental

health and addictions, challenges in the justice system. This work will

be ongoing.

Finally, I’d like to thank all the incredible police officers

across the province for their work during this incredibly challenging

time. I’d also like to thank those that work with and help British

Columbians that are struggling with mental health and

addictions.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the Chair of the committee, the member for

Nanaimo–North Cowichan, and also to the Deputy Chair, the member for

Peace River North, for your comments and for this opportunity to say a

few words about this really important work that I was fortunate enough

to be able to be a part of.

Committee work is some of the most rewarding work in this

assembly, and it’s work that is incredibly important, as it’s a way to

bring in all of the multidimensional sides of the House. All of the

skills and expertise that each of us individually brings to this

Legislative Assembly can be brought together to inform and to make what

are the important recommendations for government to undertake. It has

been truly….

[11:10 a.m.]

As has been highlighted, we’re recommending transformational

change in policing and public safety in this province. I believe that

it’s been a transformational change for myself, as a member of it, and I

certainly have a new appreciation for all of my colleagues that sat

around the table and so openly and honestly debated and discussed and

tested what we heard to ensure that the 11-plus recommendations — there

are more than 11 recommendations, but there are 11 that we want to be

very clear on — are brought forward to the minister.

In addition to thanking the incredible staff — Karan, for keeping

us pointed in the right direction — thank you for being that really

important force, and all of the staff who wrote the committee report and

took everything and brought it in to what we see as basically a 100-page

document.

I also want to raise my hands in gratitude to the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General for giving us a broad terms of

reference, for allowing us, for giving the confidence of this assembly,

to do the work and not restricting it, but to say: “Go in, dig down,

find out what needs to be said and say it.”

I just really want to raise my hands to the Minister of Public

Safety for giving us that broad terms of reference. The output is not

going to be easy. It’s going to be difficult. We struggled with that

difficulty. The recommendations that we make are not recommendations

that we make lightly. They are recommendations from the people, the

experts, the stakeholders, the survivors, the community leaders that we

heard day in and day out, and I raise my hands to every one of them who

participated in this really important process.

This is the first step of many steps forward in reforming policing

in this province, to restoring transparency and accountability,

restoring trust in policing, and a first step in that transformational

change. I really encourage the government, whether it be this government

or the next government and the next government…. This is going to take

time to really embrace the collaboration that happened within the

committee and to share this work with the committee.

I don’t think government needs to feel that the burden is going to

be carried by just the cabinet or just whoever the governing party is.

Share the work. Have an oversight committee. Carry it forward as a

Legislative Assembly. That’s the way that we’re going to really have the

most impactful transformational change and recognize that the burden

should not be carried by any one political party in this province, any

one Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It should be

carried by all of us equally. There are 87 shoulders in this place that

can all carry that work together.

I thank you all for this opportunity to speak.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

R. Glumac: As a member of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act,

I just wanted to take a moment to say a few words, because I believe

that the work we have done here is incredible and historic.

I think most people, when they watch question period, think it’s

just division, and it can become very toxic and all of that. But the

work that we did here in the committee…. We came together with a common

purpose to reform policing so that it better serves all people in

B.C.

I’m very proud of that work. The recommendations that we made came

after hearing input from over 400 organizations and individuals over the

course of a year and a half. That speaks to, I think, the level of

interest in this very important topic.

We took all of that. We worked together across all par­ties.

We took all of that input, and we came forward with 11 bold and

transformational recommendations. I’m very proud of the work that we

did. I think it’s some of the most important work that I’ve done as an

MLA.

I want to thank everyone that contributed to that, and the great

guidance of the Chair and the vice-Chair, and members of all parties and

everyone that contributed.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair would like to recognize the member for Surrey South for

a personal statement.

[11:15 a.m.]

Personal Statements

SERVICE TO LEGISLATURE

AND MESSAGE OF

APPRECIATION

S. Cadieux: I will take my place to make my statement.

It’s been a journey, Mr. Speaker: 13 years. I have a few things in

reflection. I was the 88th woman elected to this Legislature. The first

woman with a disability elected and to serve in cabinet. I’m proud of

it, and I hope that it has allowed others to see themselves

here.

During my tenure with Social Development, we changed income

assistance policy, reforms that continue to lead the country on asset

exemptions and annualized earning exemptions. And there’s much more left

to do. At MCFD, we started the Youth Advisory Council, the YAC, and as

recently as last week, youth from that group have reached out to me to

share with me something about their lives or seek advice or assistance.

So for all of the abuse I took here during my five years as minister, I

must have done something right.

I put a focus on kids that were languishing in foster care,

focused on finding them adoptive homes. We saw a record number of

children find permanency. Nearly 1,400 youth over a three-year span.

Forever families. It’s the best outcome we can work for.

I championed the single-parent employment initiative to help

parents on income assistance get the training and, ultimately,

employment to support their families. It’s the only program of its scale

in this country.

I share these last few things because I’m proud of them, and

because I will never accept the narrative that right-of-centre

politicians don’t care about people. I do. People are the reason we all

come here to serve.

Back in Surrey, I advocated hard and long for my ridings and saw

14 new and expanded schools — four more underway that have opened since

2017. I’m proud of that. I’m glad to see those investments

continue.

I’m proud of the work that I was able to do for individual

constituents to help them get the services and supports they needed.

That’s the job of a local MLA.

I’ve been able to serve in government and in opposition. I have

faced the worst of what this House can offer, and the best. I truly

believe that we all come here with the right motives. Some may lose the

plot along the way. Some may not have the necessary patience and

persistence to get things done. But most can look back on their time

here with pride.

This is a place steeped in tradition, and that’s important. But it

can also stifle progress, and I hope that future legislators here will

have the courage to make the nuanced changes to how this place works to

ensure that everyone who is given the privilege to serve has the

opportunity to feel that they can be heard and to leave with a sense of

accomplishment.

I want to challenge all of the members of this place to be better

— to do better. The push-and-pull in politics is necessary. Debate is

necessary. Differentiation is necessary. But keep it about the policy.

Debate the ideas. Champion the ideas. Don’t make it personal. It’s too

easy, and frankly, it’s lazy. Don’t apply generalizations that result in

character assassinations, because you are all better than that. I know

you. These are divisive times. Let’s not be the ones dividing. Lead

instead.

I haven’t had success in everything I’d hoped. Not, obviously, in

any ministry post. Not as an individual who came here with dreams and

aspirations. Equal pay legislation and accessible housing are still

needed, and perhaps when, not if, future governments get these things

done, you’ll remember my advocacy. Some days here were glorious. Some

were soul crushing.

[11:20 a.m.]

I am ever-thankful for my colleagues, my friends, my family, the

volunteers, and all of the amazing staff in our offices, in this

Legislature, in the public service and, of course, most importantly, my

husband, who has stood with me through these years. No one has success

without a team.

I do want to mention and thank the Premier who first asked me to

run, Gordon Campbell, for his encouragement and his trust, and the

second, Christy Clark, who also gave me the opportunity to make change

for our province. I wish my former colleague and new Leader of the

Opposition, Kevin Falcon, every success. I know he will bring passion

and strong leadership to this amazing team of MLAs, my

colleagues.

Lastly, I was elected four times in three different ridings. I do

believe that has to be a record. I want to thank the constituents of

Surrey-Panorama, Surrey-Cloverdale and Surrey South for their trust in

me over these years to represent them here in this place, to voice their

concerns, to advocate for their needs, to share their stories. It has

truly been an honour and a privilege.

When I started this journey in 2008 at a nomination meeting, I had

flown home on a red-eye flight from Ottawa, where I was participating in

the Governor General Canadian Leadership Conference. I was very tired,

but I was ready for a new adventure. I didn’t know what it would entail.

I had no idea what being an MLA really meant or how long it would be

for, but I knew it wasn’t forever.

Now I am embarking on the next adventure in a role I feel I was

excited, and I’m a bit overwhelmed at the good wishes I’ve been

receiving. So I will say goodbye and thank you as I resign my seat as

the MLA for Surrey South.

Tributes

STEPHANIE CADIEUX

Hon. S. Robinson: On behalf of the Premier and my colleagues in the B.C. NDP caucus,

I’m proud to be able to stand and say a few words about the member for

Surrey South as she prepares to leave this place.

The member was first elected for Surrey-Panorama in 2009 and then

Surrey-Cloverdale in 2013 and then Surrey South — she’s a collector of

Surreys — in 2017 and 2020. She has ably served as Minister of Labour,

Citizens’ Services and Open Government, the Minister of Community, Sport

and Cultural Development, the Minister of Social Development and the

Minister of Children and Family Development. She also collects

ministries.

In all of that time, she has served her constituents with grace,

compassion and empathy. As minister, she has been diligent and focused.

Yes, she has done some things right, and she has never lost the plot. As

a minister, she was keen to serve all of B.C., keen to make things

better for people. We may have differed on how that needed to be

accomplished, but that’s just an example of how she never lost the plot.

It really was about and has been about making life better for British

Columbians.

[11:25 a.m.]

One of the many things that I have come to admire about the member

is her focus on the issues that are important to her. She has been a

eager to serve, even as the member of the opposition, in that capacity.

I can say how pleased I have been when she has reached out to me in my

capacity in my various ministry roles to offer her service, to offer her

knowledge, to offer her capacity to help make things better, even when

she’s on the other side of the House. To me, that’s an example of never

losing sight of the people of this province, and she has never, ever

lost sight of that.

She’s made herself available in a non-partisan way. That, I think,

is truly the gift that I want to acknowledge that the member for Surrey

South has certainly reminded me of and, I know, other people on this

side of the House.

I want to say a few words as she embarks on her new journey. I

just want to say how so very pleased we all are — the Premier has

acknowledged that as well — to see her become Canada’s first Chief

commitment, her grace and her energy and that she will make Canada

better. She will definitely make B.C. better.

As a result of the work that we know she has ahead of her, which

is going to be some heavy lifting, we will be more accessible, and we

will be a more inclusive society. We look forward to seeing her do great

things. We know that she’ll continue to make life better for British

Columbians and for Canadians. And we know that she’ll make us all very,

very proud.

S. Furstenau: As the member for Surrey South mentioned in her comments, politics

can be divisive, and we have seen ourselves become increasingly in a

divisive world of late. It can have the effect of dehumanizing

peo­ple, particularly the people who serve in rooms just like

this. We need very hard to push back against this. One person who has

shown me how to push back against this is the member for Surrey

South.

The seats in this building are filled with humans, peo­ple

with families, people with friends, people who have made service the

centre of their efforts. They have found ways to serve their

communities. They’ve made sacrifices to be here.

The member for Surrey South is a person I have gotten to know over

the last five years, a person who I consider a friend. We’ve served on

several committees together, including the particularly gruelling and

bonding Finance Committee, months of travelling around the province

together. I learned firsthand during that committee how an ableist world

fails people with disabilities, as we waited late one night for a taxi

that could accommodate a wheelchair and found out that the town we were

in did not have such a taxi. Her humour did not waver, which is one of

the things I appreciate so much about her.

There are a few other things I have learned about her in the last

five years, in addition to that great sense of humour. And she can be

wickedly funny. She is committed to the work. She prepares for the

meetings. She prepares for her work in this House. She prepares deeply

and thoroughly. She reflects on the challenges that people in this

province face, and as we heard today in her comments, she reflects on

the many dimensions of the roles she has played and always strives to

find ways to serve better.

I really like her. I really like the model she has shown, putting

service to her community first. In the model she has shown, and in her

comments today, the work we do in here should be focused on the policy

and the efforts that we’re doing to serve, and we should not make it

personal.

I wish her the very best in her new role, and I look forward to

hearing about it in the years to come.

[11:30 a.m.]

S. Bond: I’m delighted to add to the comments of my colleagues today as we

celebrate, we feel happy, and we feel sad about this moment in the

Legislature. I do want to reflect on the fact that earlier today, our

new leader, Kevin Falcon, spent time celebrating and recognizing

Stephanie for her work. I have to admit I’m very glad that I’m still

sitting in this chair for another few days, at least, because I get to

make the remarks on behalf of the opposition. But I look forward to

Kevin taking his place, hopefully very soon.

Some things are beyond partisan politics. I think you witnessed

that here today. That includes recognizing MLAs who have served with

distinction in this House, and that is exactly what the MLA — I’m having

a hard time, Mr. Speaker, not saying “Steph,” so forgive me if that

slips out — for Surrey South is. I’m very lucky because every single

person in our caucus could stand up today and say exactly the things

that have been said by the Finance Minister, the Leader of the Third

Party and that I will share. There is a genuine, deep feeling of care

and appreciation for someone who just made such an enormous difference

for us as a team and in this parliament.

As you’ve heard, the MLA for Surrey South was elected in 2009, and

she served in many capacities. In fact, while I understand the

importance of the historic role that she had, it was a bit jarring to

read on the legislative website that she is noted as being the first

woman to use a wheelchair elected to the assembly and also to serve in

cabinet. What I know about the MLA for Surrey South is that she did not

let her injury or her wheelchair define her. Instead, it drove her to be

a passionate advocate, to be tireless about inclusion and

equity.

Can you think of a better role for someone who has spent her

our province and in our country than becoming Canada’s first Chief

government does, but I can tell you that in this case, they made the

right decision, from my perspective.

When she was appointed, the MLA for Surrey South was described as

disability inclusion.” Her new role reflects decades of tireless work,

including here in this House.

It’s hard to imagine that today is the last time, at least for

now, that we will hear from the MLA for Surrey South. As she described

her personal experiences here, all of us, and those of us who have known

her well, know that she did both persevere and achieve in this place.

There were soul-crushing days, and we felt them too.

Her legacy will live on, especially when we take the opportunity

to reintroduce her equal pay legislation for the seventh time. Imagine

the permanent legacy if the government today agreed to call the bill and

we could unanimously pass this critical piece of legislation. That would

be a legacy for the member for Surrey South.

[11:35 a.m.]

As the member for Surrey South leaves here to pursue the next

chapter of her career, as you have heard today, we will be cheering her

on. We will also be very respectful of the independent and non-partisan

role that she is required to fulfil. But we will be supporting her

efforts at the national level.

On behalf of our team, I would like to say to the member for

Surrey South: thank you. Thank you for your mentorship, particularly of

new MLAs. We heard stories last night about how much that has meant to

the new MLAs who arrive, knowing that there was someone who cared and

could walk alongside them. Thank you for your leadership on issues that

were never easy, but always important, and your friendship. Whether you

were a newbie or a veteran, we always knew that there was an open door,

a place to be accepted and cared for.

Yes, I agree with the Leader of the Third Party that she is

wickedly funny. She also has amazing touches. She is very good at

hospitality, generosity. We have been the beneficiary of all of those

things.

So to the member for Surrey South, we want you to know that we are

very proud of you. We will miss you, but we know that this job was made

for you. We will continue to cheer you on. I know this. I have every

confidence, and all of our team does, that you will continue to make us

proud. Thank you for your time in this Legislature. You have made a

difference.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, our special colleague and special friend Stephanie

Cadieux.

[Applause.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: Stephanie Cadieux would want us to get back to our good work. So here

today, in this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 17, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of

Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:39 a.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to introduce, for the committee’s benefit, staff who

are with me today: Adrian Gibson, legal counsel, justice services

branch; Julia Hincks, legal counsel, legal services branch; Christina

Drake, legal counsel, legal services branch. All are from the Ministry

of the Attorney General. I appreciate their assistance today and look

forward to the member’s questions.

On clause 1.

[11:40 a.m.]

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney and the staff who are here assisting us

today. With respect to clause 1, as I understand it, the objective here

is to provide a mechanism by which dispute notices may be filed

electronically, and this will create the statutory underpinnings for

doing so. If we go to subclause 1(

a) and, in a similar way, sub (b),

both include provisions — sub 1(a)(

d) and sub 1(b)(d) — that seem to be

some kind of an alternative mechanism for the providing of a notice of

dispute, something different than an electronic means.

Can the Attorney indicate what is contemplated there through the

regulatory mechanism for a mechanism for providing a notice of dispute

that isn’t presently contained within

section 15 of the Offence Act and

would not be covered by sub (c), setting out an electronic

means?

Hon. D. Eby: I think I might be able to summarize this regulatory power as the

fax-machine provision. In many pieces of legislation, written into the

legislation is that you can deliver things by facsimile, and that

creates the need, ultimately, to update legislation and miscellaneous

statutes amendment acts and so on in front of the full House, when,

really, there’s no controversy about the issue of how something might be

delivered. It’s just that the technology has changed, making it

appropriate for regulatory change rather than statutory

change.

The goal here is that this statute can keep up with technology —

that there may be some future way for people to deliver that wouldn’t be

captured in the methodologies that we’ve laid out here, and that we

wouldn’t have to amend the entire statute in order to allow delivery to

take place in that way. We don’t have specific technologies in mind. If

we did, we would be investing heavily in them. We don’t know yet what

those future deliveries mechanisms will be, and so we’re prepared for

that.

M. de Jong: I think I understand the general explanation, which is that we may

not know what all of the options are in the future. What we have today

is a means either to deliver a dispute notice in person or by mail, and

we’re adding now, under these provisions, the ability to do so

electronically through any of the various technologies that presently

exist or, I suppose, might exist in the future.

But aside from either mailing your dispute in, attending at the

address to register your dispute or deliver your dispute notice, or

submitting it electronically, I’m not sure I…. Maybe this is the

Attorney’s point, but I’m not sure how else one could register a notice

of dispute. I think that’s kind of the…. It’s one thing to say, “Well,

there’s unanticipated technology,” but how would that unanticipated

technology not fall into one of those three categories?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Many of these provisions that we pass in this place are

interpreted by courts, and certain

definitions for terms accumulate

through the common law and become quite entrenched, so “electronic” may

come to be defined by the courts to be a certain type or list of

technologies. This creates and future-proofs our ability to

respond.

Staff have provided me with an interesting example of a QR code,

for example, that could potentially be used, which would, technically,

be a delivery if it was scanned and allowed someone to register a

dispute. But we don’t have any technologies like that that are planned.

This is very much future-looking and anticipating the need that we may

need to explicitly direct the court that this is what we mean,

potentially, if it’s narrowed through judicial decision or if new

technologies arrive that neither the member nor I can anticipate, that

we’re prepared for that.

M. de Jong: The amendments pertain to the existing

section 15 of the Offence

Act, which provides the means, presently, for registering, filing a

notice of dispute. One is to deliver to the address on what’s referred

to as a ticket. The other is to appear at a location on the ticket.

We’re now going to add this provision regarding electronic

means.

My understanding has always been, under

section 15, that the

option exists for the person to whom the violation ticket has been

served to choose one of those means. Will that remain the case in terms

of the additional electronic means being complicated? Does the Attorney

foresee a means, and does the authority exist by which the recipient of

a violation ticket could be directed that he or she must use one of the

three means available for registry in their notice of

dispute?

Hon. D. Eby: This legislative reform is not meant to limit options. It’s meant

to add additional options, so people will still have those existing

options.

I’ll note that that’s not just in one direction. People submitting

materials to the court…. There’s a requirement to provide a mailing

address, as well, for the disputant, because there are situations where

the court…. Maybe the email is not available for some reason — there’s a

problem with the system — or they are emailing materials to the person,

but it’s bouncing back. The court, also, will maintain that option of

sending physical notices through the mail as well.

M. de Jong: When we get down to the additional…. I’m still on clause 1,

obviously, but the clause seeks to add subsections (2.1) and (2.2) to

section 15. So (2.1) references the earlier provisions we were

discussing and makes the point that they do not apply to prescribed

classes of violation tickets. I just want to ask a couple of questions

about those prescribed classes of violation tickets. I take it that they

do not presently exist and that when we went get to (2.3) we will begin

to get a sense of what those classes of violation tickets might look

like.

But I wondered, just with respect to (2.1), if we could begin by

having the Attorney describe the nature of the distinction, provide some

general comments about what “classes of violation tickets” refers to and

why, in the government’s view, it is necessary to make the distinction

as it relates to the electronic filing of dispute notices on a class

basis. When I say class basis, of course I mean class of violation

tickets.

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection (2.3) constrains LGIC’s ability to make regulations to

certain classes of violation tickets and sets out that those classes may

be based on one or more of the following criteria. It could be a class

based on the enactment itself — the legal provision that the ticket is

purporting to enforce. It could be based on specific offences under the

Offence Act. It could be based on the type of enforcement officer — for

example, a conservation officer versus a police officer. It could be

based on the type of violation ticket, the date of the ticket, the date

of service of the ticket or the hearing locations.

These classes are put together for regulatory ability to exclude

the application of these electronic provisions, because it may be the

case, if we choose the example of enforcement officers, that a

conservation officer may not have the ability to issue an electronic

ticket. This is meant very much to be complementary to some of the

initiatives around electronic tickets but may not have access to that

infrastructure in delivering that ticket, which makes the system not

work the way it’s intended in terms of service and response and so

on.

So government would say that for this class of tickets issued by

conservation officers with these dates, these electronic mechanisms

don’t apply. It’s really meant to provide the ability to troubleshoot if

there’s a particular category that is not working well with this

electronic system, that we can pull it out and keep it separate until

we’re able to address that issue.

M. de Jong: That’s a helpful way to begin the conversation. The Attorney,

though, mentioned…. In terms of offering a fairly rudimentary, general

description of the classes of violation tickets, he mentioned situations

where the decision may be made not to allow for the electronic issuance

of a violation ticket.

I think I understand that, but I thought these provisions related

specifically to the filing of dispute notices, so that in a circumstance

where a conservation officer, for example, has issued a ticket — a

violation ticket — these provisions speak not to the technology that can

be utilized in issuing the violation ticket but the technology that

could be used to register a dispute to that ticket.

In that case, I was a bit confused by the Attorney’s

ans­wer. Probably, I’ll wrap the subsequent question. In what

circumstances, generally, might the Attorney believe this government or

a future government, or Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, would say: “In

these circumstances, we don’t think the ability to register a dispute

electronically should exist”? Because that’s what this pertains to —

creating exceptions to the ability of an accused to register their

dispute electronically. If I have that incorrect, I’m sure the Attorney

will correct me.

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, sometimes, in aiming to clarify, I do manage to confuse the

issue. So I will try again.

The member is absolutely right. These provisions re­late to

the filing of a dispute by an individual. What I was endeavouring to

communicate was that we are building an online system in order to be

able to deliver this service to British Columbians. When an e-ticket is

issued electronically by a police officer or a conservation officer or

anybody that issues tickets in the province, we anticipate that that

would be immediately available in the online system for somebody to then

notify that they intend to dispute this ticket.

Paper-based tickets — an example of a moving motor vehicle

violation — go to ICBC, then they’re entered manually into the system.

We don’t want to hold up this whole process if, in fact, it turns out to

be a bit of a barrier as we get to implementation that paper tickets

have this challenge of the lag and it’s not in the system or the person

registered the dispute. We don’t want to hold everything up until every

officer that can issue a ticket is on the e-system.

What we’d like to do is, for those that we can move on quickly, to

be able to do that. If it does turn out there are issues with paper

tickets, for example, in this new system — we don’t know yet, but

anticipating that it might happen — we can go ahead with those that are

ready and hold out certain classes of tickets that aren’t.

With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress

and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND CLIMATE CHANGE

STRATEGY

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Bailey in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:40 a.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $312,344,000 .

The Chair: Minister, I invite you to have opening remarks.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for coming. We will try to get through

opening remarks before we have to adjourn.

Welcome to our colleague in her new role as critic for the

ministry. I look forward to her questions as well as the questions of

her colleagues and members of the Third Party.

I’d like to introduce, although they’re not all here at the

moment, staff who will be assisting in the questions on estimates over

the next number of hours and days.

I’d like to begin by recognizing the staff from the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure who work with me as minister

responsible for TransLink. On my right is Kaye Krishna, deputy minister.

Also joining us are Reg Bawa, assistant deputy minister of

transportation policy, programs and partnerships; Jodi Dong, executive

director, transit branch; Lisa Gow, executive project director,

TransLink; and Jennifer MacLean, executive project director,

TransLink.

Also joining me over the course of this Committee of Supply will

be my deputy minister, Kevin Jardine; the assistant deputy minister and

head of the climate action secretariat, Jeremy Hewitt; Laurel Nash,

assistant deputy minister of environmental protection; Jim Standen,

assistant deputy minister of B.C. Parks; Doug Forsdick, executive lead,

compliance and enforcement division; Elenore Arend, associate deputy

minister, environmental assessment office; Michael Shepard, assistant

deputy minister, environmental assessment office; and Ranbir Parmar,

executive financial officer, corporate services for the natural

resources ministries.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that we’re meeting on the

traditional territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples,

the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations.

Chair, this last year has been incredibly challenging for everyone

in British Columbia on a personal level, on a level of protection of our

families and communities, on a level of our concern for the future. My

ministry, along with other ministries, has been focusing so much of our

effort on meeting those challenges while, at the same time, fulfilling

the mandate that I was given by the Premier and that is given to us by

the people of British Columbia.

We experienced, on top of the pandemic, firsthand, extreme impacts

of climate change. No longer something that happened somewhere else. No

longer something that might happen in the future. No longer something

that was mildly inconvenient. We experienced a heat dome that led to

deaths of both humans and other species. We experienced wildfires that

threatened communities and lives and the economy and large-scale

flooding that had devastating impacts on families and on our agriculture

industry and on people with long roots in many communities.

Our ministry is taking important steps, along with other

ministries in government and other departments, like emergency

management B.C., to better prepare our prov­ince and British

Columbians for more frequent and, likely, more extreme climate

events.

[11:45 a.m.]

We launched phase 1 of our climate preparedness and adaptation

strategy last year, and we’ve been consulting with the public and

stakeholders on phase 2. The final strategy will be released in the

coming months.

CleanBC is this government’s climate action plan. It is also our

plan to help build a cleaner, resilient, diversified economy for the

future, the future that we all hope we can create together. It remains

one of the strongest climate plans in North America. Our programs have

been recognized internationally as the most creative government program

fighting climate change, specifically our supports to help industry

reduce emissions.

We’re creating a low-carbon economy, cleaner transportation,

cleaner energy and energy efficiency, and cleaner industry, as I

mentioned, as well as communities. We’re boosting clean technology,

innovation and jobs in B.C. through the CleanBC program for industry.

This year we announced that we are launching a new local government

climate action program that will help create healthier, stronger

communities across British Columbia.

We’re working hard to make clean energy alternatives more

affordable. We want to help people as they make the switch to electric

vehicles with record funding for rebates and tax supports to make them

more affordable. We also want to help people make their homes, their

buildings and their communities more energy efficient and more

affordable.

In B.C. parks, over the last couple of years, we’ve seen an

incredible increase in demand. They are more popular than ever. They

have been a haven for people during the pandemic as a way to safely

recharge and reconnect with nature.

I’m pleased to report that our new and improved campsite

reservation system and service is operating well, and it is meeting the

expectations of British Columbians as well as their often legitimate

criticisms about failures in the past. This site is part of an overall

transformation project at B.C. parks to make sure we are doing all we

can to promote access in a fair, equitable and affordable way. Last year

there were more than 260,000 reservations, and we expect B.C. parks will

be more popular than ever this year.

We are also launching and have put out for public discussion the

Public Interest Bonding Strategy. We are working through the very first

environmental assessments under the 2018 act with Indigenous nations to

fully involve them in the spirit of both DRIPA and UNDRIP and to make

the process more efficient from the very start. We have launched the

CleanBC plastics action plan, and along with that are plans to clean up

our coastline through the clean coast, clean waters

initiative.

At TransLink, my mandate also includes helping families get around

more affordably and more conveniently. To support this goal, children 12

and under now ride public transit for free, saving households hundreds

of dollars a year and ensuring that we get a new generation of public

transit riders used to and embracing of the service.

The expansion of major rapid transit lines such as the

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain is going to improve access to transit options

and connect new communities with housing that people need, as well as

reducing gridlock for people in Metro Vancouver. Our transit ridership

is recovering faster than most jurisdictions in North America, after

dropping substantially during the pandemic. We continue to support our

public transit system to maintain service to ensure safe, affordable and

reliable transit services.

With the establishment of the Ministry of Land, Water and Resource

Stewardship, some program responsibilities have moved to the new

ministry. Most notably, our work in the areas of biodiversity and

watershed security now rest primarily with the lead responsibility of

the Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship. But my ministry

and I look forward to continuing to support that ministry and that

minister in that role.

We have also created a new division in my ministry. The new

compliance and enforcement division brings together three areas: the

conservation officer service, the compliance and environmental

enforcement branch and the compliance policy and planning

branch.

I’d like to thank all of the staff in the ministry for their

incredible hard work, as well as the staff in MOTI that support my

responsibility for TransLink, particularly those staff members who brief

me regularly and support me in various initiatives, including

legislation.

I’m proud of the actions of our ministry. I’m proud of our actions

on public transportation in Metro Vancouver. I’m proud of the progress

that our ministry has made. I’m looking forward to answering the

questions from members opposite.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, for your opening remarks.

I apologize, Member. We’ll ask you to do your opening remarks

after the break.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 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.