Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 7, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 284

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 13 — Pay Transparency Act

Hon. K. Conroy

Bill M213 — Indigenous Names Statutes Amendment Act,

D. Clovechok

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sustainable development challenge accomplishments by

Kelowna students

R. Merrifield

Zimbabwe Cultural Society

J. Sims

Pioneer Log Homes

L. Doerkson

Richmond Women’s Resource Centre

K. Greene

Buddhist delegation and ceremony at

Legislature

T. Wat

Watersheds

F. Donnelly

Oral Questions

Government action on repeat offenders and crime in

communities

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. de Jong

Salt Spring Island public safety services and

resources for first responders

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Surrey school district portable use

T. Halford

Hon. R. Singh

Pattullo Bridge replacement project

T. Halford

Hon. D. Coulter

Budget provisions for health care in

Surrey

E. Sturko

Hon. A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, information report, Fraud Risk and

Financial Statements: B.C. Public Sector,

Part 1 , March 2023

Reports from Committees

Merit Commissioner Appointment Committee, December

M. Starchuk

M. Morris

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Merit Commissioner

M. Starchuk

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 17 — Addictions care (continued)

B. D’Eith

P. Milobar

G. Kyllo

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Municipal

Affairs (continued)

D. Ashton

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Kang

D. Clovechok

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2023

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.

Introductions by Members

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, as you can see, the gallery is full of our wonderful

hard-working firefighters from all over British Columbia. I also know that,

individually, you all want to recognize them and say thank you, but that

would take lots of time. So I’ll do it on behalf of all of us and say thank

you to all the firefighters.

Most of you attended the ceremony yesterday recognizing fallen

firefighters. We also send our sincere condolences to all the

families.

Once again, on behalf of each and every member, we want to say thank

you. Thank you so much for all the good work you do.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have two introductions today. The first is from the Automotive

Retailers Association, an organization which has been around since 1951 and

has helped shape the automotive industry that we know today in British

Columbia. They do absolutely incredible work. With us will be Adrian

Scovell, their president; Ron Tremblay, their chair; board members Scott

Waddle, Rick Hatswell, Wade Bartok, Mitchell Martin and Nairn

McKenna.

Would the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Today we have attending, from the Housing Ministry, staff from the

corporate management services branch. I want to recognize Lindsey Hilton,

Lauren Delaronde, Samuel Starodub, Cassidy Steele, Jesse Cook, Whitney

Fondja, Ayesha Asad, Kash Akinkuowo, Christina Craft, Karen Fishwick and

Eden Landero.

I want to ask the House to please make them really welcome

today.

F. Donnelly: Members of the First Nations Fisheries Council are in the House today.

Joining us are President Hugh Braker; board members Stu Barnes, Gord

Sterritt and John Henderson; and staff members Jordan Point and Astrid

Niemann-Zajac.

Would the House please join me and make them feel very

welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I rise today to recognize Hydrogen B.C. and their leadership, who are

helping us move to­wards a robust, made-in-B.C. hydrogen economy. Here

with us in the gallery today are Matthew Klippenstein, Pranav Chandrasekar,

Alan Young, Andrea Engelen, Colin Armstrong, Leah Michalopulos, Leanne

Sharpe, Grace Quan, Charlie Ker, Bob Blattler, Cora Moffat, John Quinn and

Scott Williams.

As I hope all members know, Hydrogen B.C. is the province’s foremost

association of hydrogen producers, innovators and industry-adjacent

companies. They are the regional branch of the Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel

Cell Association here in British Columbia.

Our province is home to over half of Canada’s hydrogen and fuel cell

companies and half of the nation’s research investment, represented in large

part by Hydrogen B.C. They and their members champion B.C.’s hydrogen and

fuel cell sector, which is capturing investment and leveraging the largest

hydrogen cluster in the country. I look forward to meeting with them and the

Premier later today.

Will the House please help me to make them feel most welcome here

today.

A. Olsen: As all the members in the House know, our constituency assistants or

advocates, however we refer to them, help us do our work while we are in the

building here and, as well, support us when we’re doing our work in the

constituency.

Somewhere amongst all of the firefighters in the gallery is Jake Rees.

Jake spent the better part of a year working in the Saanich North and the

Islands constituency office before heading off to the University of Victoria

last September.

I want to raise my hands in gratitude for all of the work that Jake

did on behalf of the constituents of Saanich North and the Islands and ask

the members here to please make him feel very welcome today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: A moment ago I introduced the Automotive Retailers Association. One of

their partners that they work with in government is RoadSafetyBC. With us

today in the gallery, and who will be meeting with the Automotive Retailers

Association, are the policy analysts from RoadSafetyBC. They are Lisa King,

Jeff Cui, Tara Zala, Kristine Chan, Lesley Valour and senior policy manager

Jeff McConnell.

Would the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to welcome my brother Guy McKintuck to the

Legislature. I know you said we weren’t allowed to introduce firefighters,

but he just happens to be the fire chief for Delta.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — PAY TRANSPARENCY ACT

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pay Transpar­ency

Act.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Pay Transparency Act. This bill will

address systemic discrimination in the workplace by requiring employers

to enhance transparency in their pay practices and by prohibiting

employer conduct that contributes to the gender pay gap.

B.C.’s gender pay gap was 17 percent in 2022, the second-highest

gap, after Alberta. We know that pay gaps are even higher for

Indigenous, racialized and newcomer women, and the pay gap lightly

affects people all along the gender continuum, including non-binary,

transgender and two-spirit people.

Everyone deserves to be paid fairly. This bill will shine a light

on the gender pay gap by requiring mid- and large-sized employers in

B.C. to post pay transparency reports. These reports will reveal gaps in

wages and bonus pay.

These reports will do more than show the difference in pay just

between men and women. Pay transparency reports will use the province’s

new gender and sex data standard and our forthcoming anti-racism data

standard to reveal pay gaps between men, women and non-binary people at

intersectional levels. The requirement to post pay transparency reports

will be phased in over four years, based on advice we heard from B.C.

employers and leading best practices.

[10:15 a.m.]

The B.C. Public Service and our largest Crown corporations will

lead the way and will start to report their pay gaps this November. By

2026, all public, private and non-profit sector employers in B.C. with

50 or more employees will be required to publicly report their pay gaps.

By shining a light on their pay gaps, we will incentivize employers

across the province to take concrete steps to reduce unequal

pay.

This bill will also prohibit other practices known to contribute

to the gender pay gap. As of November 1, 2023, all employers in B.C.

will be required to include pay or pay ranges on their public job

postings. This leading practice has been implemented by our neighbours

in Washington and California and many other jurisdictions in the United

States. B.C. will be one of the first Canadian provinces to take this

important step to tackle our pay gap.

Employers will also no longer be permitted to ask job applicants

for their pay history when negotiating salaries or to punish employees

who disclose what they earn to their co-workers. These practices can

perpetrate the pay gap and need to stop if we truly want to address pay

discrimination in B.C.

In developing this legislation, we have been attentive to the

requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Our assessment shows that this legislation is consistent with many

articles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. As a

result, we have consulted broadly with First Nations and Indigenous

partners to seek their input and perspectives.

These measures will pave the way for more transparency on pay

practices by B.C. employers. They will empower employees in seeking fair

compensation, and they will reward B.C. employers who, in our global

economy and tight labour market, will become leaders in fair and

equitable pay practices.

Our government is already making progress in narrowing the pay gap

through our investment in training, education and child care and through

our increases to the minimum wage. The Pay Transparency Act is another

critical tool that will continue our commitment to support a strong,

sustainable economy that works for everyone.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Pay Transparency Act, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL M213 — INDIGENOUS NAMES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,

D. Clovechok presented a bill intituled Indigenous Names Statutes

Amendment Act, 2023.

D. Clovechok: I move that the bill entitled Indigenous Names Statutes Amendment

Act, on which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read for the first time now.

Let me begin by saying that this is the second time I’ve

introduced this bill and remind members that it was inspired by a young

woman, a student from Golden, B.C., Emme Abs.

This bill deals with truth and reconciliation and the reclamation

of Indigenous names for residential school survivors, Sixties Scoop

survivors and their families, and the use of these traditional names on

all government documents. Indigenous people were stripped of their

traditional names by the residential school system.

This bill directly responds to one of the 94 calls to action of

the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These traditional names carry

deep cultural meaning. Yet for many First Nations, Inuit and Métis

people, residential schools robbed them of these sacred names. Some

names define, traditionally, who the person is, and for some, names are

generational — hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. Many times they

are based upon sacred stories or events. They have deep meaning. They

matter.

Many Indigenous names use characters, numbers and symbols which

are not easy to replicate and, as such, have not been able to be used on

official government documents. Indigenous applicants have been told by

government that current software won’t tolerate special characteristics.

Yet given the government’s ongoing spending, in terms of the money

that’s going out right now, one would think that there would be some

cash to develop the needed software.

I was so pleased to see the Solicitor General last week, and

rightfully so, confirm that Ukrainian refugees would be enabled to use

their own language in testing for drivers’ licences. Yet this government

continues to ignore the need for change regarding the use of First

Nations language names on government documents.

I have said this before. In all trails of life, there is one that

matters the most, and that is the trail of a true human being. To be on

this trail requires not only truth but action that, in this case, would

reconcile the wrong found inside this truth.

The government has the resources to make this happen. It’s time to

do the right thing.

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

Motion approved.

[10:20 a.m.]

D. Clovechok: The question is the first reading of the bill. I move that the

bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

Bill M213, Indigenous Names Statute Amendment Act, 2023, 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)

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE

ACCOMPLISHMENTS BY

KELOWNA STUDENTS

R. Merrifield: On February 23, after a tight competition with a close decision,

the 2023 Sustainable Development Challenge in Kelowna has declared a

winner. Each year, this program allows students to work alongside

community organizations and non-profits to devise a plan to embark on a

more sustainable future. This competition promotes their innovation and

ideas, allowing these ideas, artwork and solutions to be showcased to

the community.

The students choose an environmental issue that they’re passionate

about and work to address problems and provide solutions for all of our

future. During the event, the top six teams were selected to present

their plan to a live judging panel and audience, and I’ve heard from the

students that the mayor was the most intimidating. The teams were scored

then out of a score of 20, using a rubric sheet. After hearing all six

pitches, the judges combined their scores and determined the team’s

rankings.

This year, I am pleased to announce that both the second- and

first-place-winning teams were from my riding. The second-place-winning

team, Life Garden 2023 from Immaculata High School, received $2,000 for

their project, and their partner organizations secured a donor to match

funds raised.

First place went to Project Mini Forest of Willowstone Academy,

with a win of $5,000, which will go towards implementing the plans

proposed in their pitch as well as a sustainable development challenge

trophy. The Willowstone Academy team was the youngest team to enter, and

these grade 7 to 9s were actually competing against those that were in

early university.

They were absolutely ecstatic with the win. “We still can’t

believe that we won,” they said. “We are super excited to plant trees

and help improve our community’s biodiversity crisis,” they

said.

On the winning team were Saina Seghal, Allia Moore, Ivanna Barba,

Chanel Jarrard, Gracyn Veldhoen, Katherine Krieger and their teacher,

Jamie Stevens. The mentorship and expertise advice they received

throughout the process enables them to learn, grow and develop, and we

look forward to next year’s event.

ZIMBABWE CULTURAL SOCIETY

J. Sims: Dr. Lawrence Chidzambwa, a constituent of mine, and I met last

week to see how his community could be supported. Lawrence, who works

with patients living with HIV/AIDS in the Downtown Eastside area, is a

director with the Zimbabwe Cultural Society of B.C.

This organization began as a social and cultural group where

Zimbabweans could come together to share their experiences living in

B.C. with people who speak the same language, enjoy similar foods and

share the same celebrations.

The needs of the community were greater than a cultural group

could provide, and the Zimbabwe Cultural Society pivoted to become more

service-oriented. ZICUSO B.C. now runs culturally appropriate programs

to provide support for families in their new country. They offer seniors

and youth programs, teach technology to newcomers and run a food

security program. As the food program has grown, it now provides

culturally familiar food to over 600 people and 11 different East and

South African countries. Dr. Lawrence and his team of volunteers also

work in partnership with diversity to support refugee groups throughout

Surrey.

Like many of the African and Caribbean immigrants in B.C., those

from Zimbabwe have found a strong community. We are so fortunate to live

in a province with such a mosaic of cultures. Starting a new life in a

new country is challenging. Luckily, there are Canadians like Dr.

Lawrence Chidzambwa, who remember what it was like to be new and who are

willing to share their time helping newcomers settle in.

To Dr. Chidzambwa and his whole team of volunteers, I want to

thank them on behalf of all of us for welcoming new

Canadians.

[10:25 a.m.]

PIONEER LOG HOMES

L. Doerkson: They’ve become affectionately known as the “Timber Kings” in

Cariboo-Chilcotin. Pioneer Log Homes of B.C. was established by Bryan

Reid Sr. in 1973. A natural place to open his new business that was

central to British Columbia was Williams Lake, an area that was lush

with top-notch spruce, Douglas fir and western red cedar.

As Pioneer Log Homes grew, so did the family support. Several

members joined Pioneer Log Homes, including Bryan’s son, Bryan Reid Jr.,

and his son, Bryan Reid III, a.k.a. Little Man. Bryan Reid Jr. spent

many years training under his father to become a master craftsman and

has since taken over the family business.

In addition to family members, Pioneer Log Homes of B.C. has been

fortunate to have several members from outside of the family join the

team. Pioneer artisans include Martin Kalin and Brad Grant, both heading

up the Sugar Cane division. Sam Petersen heads up the Soda Creek

division of Pioneer Log Homes. Additionally, their elite design team is

led by Roy Keats. Gary Crosina and Aleesha Mousseau, in the sales

department, look after each client as if they were building homes for

their own families. That is the type of service Pioneer’s customers have

come to expect.

For decades, Pioneer Log Homes has become one of the most

state-of-the-art, high-quality hand-crafted log building companies in

the world. They have set extremely high standards with the custom log

home industry and are continually searching for new ways to improve all

of their products. Pioneer Log Homes is often referred to as a world

leader in this industry.

Along with everyone in Cariboo Chilcotin, I would hope that this

House will join me today in congratulating the Timber Kings and Pioneer

Log Homes of B.C. on 50 proud years of building log homes for the

world.

Happy 50th anniversary, Pioneer Log Homes.

RICHMOND WOMEN’S RESOURCE CENTRE

K. Greene: Since 1976, the Richmond Women’s Re­source Centre has

provided care and support for women in Richmond. They operate on four

key pillars: empowerment, support through education, safe space and

social justice.

Welcoming to women of all ages and backgrounds, RWRC offers basic

conversation lessons, healthy food skills for families, creative writing

for teens, women in leadership speaker series and a work-ready

program.

RWRC can’t do all this great work alone. That’s why they hosted

their signature fundraiser this past Saturday. Their event recognized

International Women’s Day, which honours the courageous women who

demanded to be counted as full and complete persons and wouldn’t take no

for an answer. Women’s rights have come so far, but there are still

miles and miles left on this road, and the work of RWRC will help us on

the journey.

I’d like to thank the RWRC board, which is Tammi Belfer, who is

president of the board; and directors Jenny Mak, Li Qing Wang, Shayla

Feldstein, Marielle Demorest, Casey Skuse, Jackson Kemmis, Dr. Navdeep

Dhillon and Traci Corr. The board is supported by great staff and

volunteers, including Kelly Sidhu, who is manager of programs and

community partnerships; Jasmine Law, marketing and administrative

support navigator; and special event executive Susan Ness.

Richmond Women’s Resource Centre event was also supported by

generous sponsors and volunteers that contributed to making their event

a big success. RWRC is rightly proud of having a safe and welcoming

space for women in Richmond. From peer support groups, like

grandmother’s support group, to work-ready computer skills, RWRC is

supporting women to overcome barriers and reach their full

potential.

A rising tide lifts all boats, and I want to thank Richmond

Women’s Resource Centre for the work that they do lifting up women,

which helps our Richmond community be better for everyone.

BUDDHIST DELEGATION

AND CEREMONY AT

LEGISLATURE

T. Wat: I rise in the House today to celebrate Buddhist culture in British

Columbia. The first Buddhist temple in Canada was built at the Ishikawa

Hotel in Vancouver in 1905, a trail-blazing achievement, no doubt. Today

there are more than 90,000 British Columbians, in all corners of the

province, who self-identify as Buddhist.

On February 27, I was honoured to welcome a delegation of Buddhist

masters and followers from across B.C. to the Legislature for a special

Buddhist dharma blessing and offering ceremony. The delegation included

more than 100 visitors from Chinese, Tibetan, Sri Lankan, Burmese, Thai,

Vietnamese and Japanese traditions. It was a beautiful ceremony, and I

thank the delegation for sharing Buddhist teachings of kindness and

compassion with all MLAs in attendance.

[10:30 a.m.]

One of the most beautiful moments, however, was the bipartisanship

on display, as our visitors received the warmest of welcomes from all

members who gathered together for this special event.

The B.C. Legislature opening its doors to the largest delegation

of Buddhist monks, nuns and masters was a significant milestone in the

people’s House and truly a sign of the diversity and inclusion of our

province.

I remain hopeful that Buddhists in British Columbia will get a day

to celebrate their culture and illuminate our deeply diverse cultural

mosaic.

WATERSHEDS

F. Donnelly: Water is life. Everyone needs clean water. Water is essential for

our food security. Wild salmon need cold, clean, abundant flows, but

watersheds in B.C. face many challenges, including a rapidly changing

climate which requires new management to help ensure they remain

healthy.

Recently I attended the Healthy Watersheds Initiative symposium in

Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh territories, where dozens of water

leaders gathered to learn, share and strategize. Anne Haira, New

Zealand’s deputy secretary of climate change for the Ministry of

Environment, spoke about the Te Ao Māori and how water is

managed in New Zealand, a place where rivers enjoy the rights of a

person.

Norm Allard Jr. of the Lower Kootenay Band spoke of the importance

of restoring wetlands.

Tara Marsden spoke of advancing UNDRIP in B.C. and of rights,

title and reconciliation in watershed work.

Roger William, chief of the Xeni Gwet’in, spoke of the importance

of water to his people, the land and the animals in his

territory.

I, along with Lori Halls, Deputy Minister of Water, Land and

Resource Stewardship, spoke about the future of B.C.’s watersheds. Later

that evening the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. hosted an incredible

celebratory dinner to recognize the work of watershed security leaders

across B.C.

We must support these watershed leaders if we are to turn the tide

to resilient watersheds and abundant salmon runs. It’s why our

government is investing $100 million in healthy watersheds and launched

the engagement of a new, co-developed watershed security strategy

intentions paper to ensure that safe, clean, abundant water is available

to communities, nations and wildlife across B.C. for generations to

come.

B.C.’s. watersheds are the lifeblood of this province, and we need

to work together to ensure that they stay that way.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN

COMMUNITIES

K. Falcon: There is a massive disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from

the Premier and the terrible results we see when it comes to crime and

social disorder.

In a ten-hour span over the weekend, four people were stabbed in

separate incidents in Vancouver, resulting in one man dying and three

others suffering serious stab wounds, four unrelated incidents of random

violence and violent stabbings within a ten-hour period.

This explosion of violence began under the Premier’s watch while

he was the soft-on-crime Attorney General for 5½ years, and it continues

to devastate communities around this province.

My question to the Premier is: when will the Premier end his

catch-and-release system and prioritize the right of victims to feel

safe in their communities over the right of violent repeat offenders to

be released back into the community?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I point out to the member

that the police do an incredible job. The Prosecution Service does an

incredible job in this province.

All of us on this side of the House take these issues incredibly

seriously. That’s why Budget 2023 has a record $462 million in new

funding for programs: to assist police in the difficult job that they’re

doing to deal with the prevention issues, to deal with justice issues,

to deal with keeping our streets safe.

[10:35 a.m.]

That’s why that money is in this budget. That’s why, for example,

we put in place the additional funding for 911: to assist people when

they have to call for help from the police, when they have to call for

situations that are challenging. Domestic violence, for

example.

What does the opposition do? Every single one of them stands up

and votes against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hang on, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members, both sides.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Leader of the Opposition just said he cares about results.

Well, a $150 million investment to upgrade 911 service will bring

greater results than voting against it.

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

K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is…. We agree that police do a great job.

The problem is the NDP aren’t doing their job. That’s the

problem.

You would almost forget that this is a government in their second

term, six years into government. They still haven’t figured out that

announcing more money doesn’t actually improve results unless you roll

up your sleeves and get the job done.

The reality is that people no longer feel safe. We have witnessed

no improvement in the violence on our streets.

On Valentine’s Day, the horrific reality hit home in Richmond when

a woman was found lying unconscious on a sidewalk. The police only

realized that she was a victim of crime when another woman came forward

with a similar report of an attack. The second victim was attacked by a

violent repeat offender on the same day, walking on the same street in

the same location as the first woman.

After six years of NDP government, our streets are the most unsafe

they have ever been. Things are getting worse, not better.

When is this Premier going to put the rights of victims ahead of

repeat offenders and keep our British Columbia citizens safe in their

own communities?

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

Once again, I’ll tell him…. We take this issue extremely

seriously. That’s why we have made investments in the resources and the

initiatives that police have asked for. That’s why we have put in place

a provincial witness security program, something that they did not do.

It resulted in more than 419 charges, 134 murder charges and

convictions. They could have done it, but they failed.

That’s why we’ve committed more than $230 million to hire RCMP

officers to assist rural communities, small communities, integrate the

change right across this province. They didn’t do that. We’ve done

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition mentions victims. I want to talk

about victims. I want to talk about the support that this government has

given to victims.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, let me just give you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let me just give you, hon. Speaker….

When that member sat on this side of the House…. What we saw

between 2009 and 2017 was a reduction in services to victims. A

reduction. That shows how much they cared about victims.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Since 2018, we have given a 70 percent increase in funding for

victim services.

They failed every single time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, both sides. Let’s have a question and then an answer,

please. Let’s not interrupt each other, both sides. Okay?

M. de Jong: It’s gratifying, actually, to hear the minister at last refer to

victims. Regrettably, the numbers of victims are piling up under this

government.

[10:40 a.m.]

Every day we seem to hear about another tragic story of a victim

at the hands of a prolific violent offender. What we continue to get

from the Premier and the government are denial and excuses, denial about

the magnitude of the problem.

Ernesto Malgapo is a violent prolific offender. He has got over

100 separate court files. He offends, he’s briefly detained, and he’s

brought before the courts. He’s released, and he reoffends. He was

brought in in December. By Valentine’s Day in February, he’s back on the

streets, reoffending, and women in Richmond are the victims of another

violent attack.

For all of the rhetoric, for all of the excuses, for all of the

denial, the problem has gotten worse and worse, and it is the result of

a purposeful catch-and-release public policy. When is this Premier

prepared to admit that his approach to this has been wrong, that victims

have suffered as a result, and when will he change his

catch-and-release…?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair really appreciates that when the question was asked,

nobody interrupted the member. Let’s do the same thing, and now let’s

hear the answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I will remind that

member that, as a lawyer, he knows that we have an independent

judiciary. He knows that we have an independent Prosecution Service. He

knows that the Criminal….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Gee, it didn’t take long, hon. Speaker, for them to ignore your

admonition.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member knows the Criminal Code of Canada is a federal

responsibility. That’s not buck-passing. That’s a fact. It’s something

that they seem to be not wanting to deal with.

Once again, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates why he will

always be the Leader of the Opposition and never sit on this side of the

House.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. It’s okay, Members. That’s okay. It’s okay, Members. Calm

down.

Members, please. Members will calm down.

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to the issues that are caused by changes that were

made to the Criminal Code, we have been really clear on this side of the

House that we think there are unintended consequences, and they need to

be changed. The federal government has indicated that they agree with

us.

I can tell you that both the Attorney General and myself will be

in Ottawa at the end of this week to discuss potential changes with the

federal Justice Minister — changes that we want to see happen to make

our streets safer, to deal with some of the unintended consequences that

came out of Bill C-75.

Because we know that British Columbians deserve to be safe in

their communities, we are doing everything we can, and will continue to

do everything we can, to make sure that they are.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Over a year ago, we urged this government to take specific steps

within their authority to address this problem that they are largely

responsible for. We urged action under the Crown Counsel Act. We urged

other steps, and all we got were excuses, denial.

Now, the Premier likes to talk about 100 days. You know what

people are talking about? It’s 2,000 days of inaction by this Premier,

when it comes to public safety.

The destruction and the violence of repeat prolific offenders….

The victims are piling up. We have first re­sponders in this

chamber today who see the results of repeat offenders and the victims

that they leave behind.

[10:45 a.m.]

It’s not working. The approach this government has taken is not

working. The continued denial of the result that they have taken is not

working for anyone. Catch and release does not work to keep people safe.

People in communities across British Columbia do not feel

safe.

What this Premier needs to do is to stand up in this House,

acknowledge that his approach has failed, and tell British Columbians he

is going to take the steps necessary to keep them safe from repeat

violent offenders.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I want

to make it clear that all of us on this side of the House take this

issue very seriously, and the Attorney General does as well.

That’s why the Attorney General and I myself, as I said, are going

to Ottawa to deal with issues around the Criminal Code, with the federal

Justice Minister, issues that impact every single province in this

country and that every Justice Minister and Solicitor General has told

the federal government they need to address. British Columbia has been

acknowledged as a leader in that area.

Provincially we have put in initiatives that are based on what the

police are telling us they need to see happen — the experts on the

ground, like the first responders in the gallery, the experts who do the

job day in, day out.

This is why, when they said, “You know what? We need a witness

protection program,” we put that in. This is why, when identified, that

we worked with local government — they said there were gaps in terms of

rural policing — and that it’s this side of the House that funded $230

million to put those 270 officers in communities right across the

province. It’s why we put in place special teams to deal with repeat

offenders.

Those initiatives were taken by this government. We will take our

advice from the experts, the police on the ground and the communities on

the ground. When it comes to victims, we will not take advice from that

side of the House. When they sat on this side of the House, they cut

victim services, over ten years, by 4 percent. We’ve increased them. We

take the public seriously, and we’re going to continue to do

that.

SALT SPRING ISLAND

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES AND

RESOURCES FOR FIRST RESPONDERS

A. Olsen: Today I’m going to do something a little different than what

normally happens in here for the 30 minutes of question

period.

I had the honour of hosting the Minister of Public Safety and

Solicitor General last Friday to Salt Spring Island. We had the

opportunity to meet with some of the first responders on the island. I

just want to say that in the follow-up from that meeting on Friday, my

constituents on Salt Spring are very happy for the open and honest

dialogue that the Minister of Public Safety had.

We met with the RCMP detachment sergeant, Clive Seabrook, whose

community-minded policing is very welcome and well received by the

islanders. We met for lunch with the fire chief, Jamie Holmes. I’m

grateful to the cook and fire volunteer, Mysha Dewar-McClelland, for the

delicious chili, cornbread and salad that was served to us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

A. Olsen: I’d like to know what it was that he heard from my community on

Salt Spring with respect to public safety and their needs.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It was an interesting

discussion we had with the residents of Salt Spring Island, who brought

forward a number of suggestions — on how much they value their local

detachment and on how much they believe in

relationship-building.

They identified some of the challenges small communities such as

his, and I know in other parts of the province, have to deal with, where

officers come into a community and they’re only there for a short time.

Particularly when you’re dealing with communities that have Aboriginal

communities, that relationship is so absolutely critical.

[10:50 a.m.]

They asked me if there is a way in which we can ensure that police

in communities like his — and indeed, in other communities — don’t just

do two or three years but have the ability to stay longer.

I said, “Yeah, you know what? That’s something that I know is a

problem. It’s something that the committee on police reform identified

as a problem,” and I said: “It is something I intend to take up with the

federal minister on that.” That’s one of the things that we heard, and I

thought it was a very valuable discussion. So I thank the member for

arranging that meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the role of question period is to

hold government accountable, but it’s also, I think, the role of this

House to be constructive. I think that when we have first responders who

are here today, who put their lives on the line for our constituents,

day in and day out, it’s important that they can see that we have both

the role of accountability, which they’re seeing, and also the role of

being constructive.

We heard a range of issues, as the minister pointed out, many of

them. In fact, Salt Spring Islanders are looking forward to a meeting

with the Minister of Transportation, because many of the issues over

there are about roads, road quality, road maintenance, the much-desired

cycling lanes on Fulford-Ganges, specifically.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

A. Olsen: Yes, I know. I’m getting to the question, Members. I’m getting to

the question. There were….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. Nobody interrupts.

A. Olsen: There were specific questions, to the minister, raised by the fire

service on Salt Spring. They’re in the process of building a new fire

hall. I think that all of the members here that have served in volunteer

fire and paid fire services know the value of their fire halls, and they

also know the value of their communications.

To the Minister of Public Safety: what role can the provincial

government play in supporting Salt Spring Island with the construction

of their new fire hall and their new communication services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question, because one of the great things

about this meeting was to learn firsthand some of the challenges that

his community — and other communities, I have no doubt — face. One of

them is the construction around that new fire hall and the issues and

the challenges that they’re facing over financing. I have committed to

the member that I would be speaking with my colleagues the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Finance in terms of

how….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I heard the comments across the way, and

I’d just like to remind the member that — you know what? — when members

do ask a question, they do get an answer. Just like when

the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Such as when the member for Kootenay East rose last week and asked

a question about driver’s licensing in the Ukrainian language. I told

him that we would deal with it. And, hon. Speaker, as I told him

yesterday — and I’ll tell the rest of his colleagues — that issue is

going to be dealt with and be completed by the 27th of March.

In answer to the member’s question, I have committed to getting

those answers, and I will do just that.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

T. Halford: After that interlude, maybe we can actually get back to question

period and holding this government to account on their failed, failed

policies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

T. Halford: Now, we all know that Surrey is the fastest-growing city in

British Columbia, and I think we all are starting to know that this NDP

budget has absolutely failed the citizens of Surrey.

Six years ago this NDP government campaigned on a promise. They

campaigned on many broken promises, but let’s talk about one specific

promise. That promise was to eliminate all portables in Surrey. Here’s a

quote from the leader of the NDP: “We have to have a total removal of

all these portables over the course of the next four years.” We agree.

Guess what. Six years, and we have more portables in Surrey than ever

before.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

T. Halford: In fact, 10 percent more portables than when that leader made that

quote.

My question — it’s a simple one — is to the Premier. How could he

fail, and miss so badly, on a campaign commitment to eliminate portables

in Surrey?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: Mr. Speaker, it’s my first time ever standing up for question

period. I would really like to thank the member for the question. I am

really honoured at what our government has done since 2017. We have made

education a key priority. We have made investments. This is an

investment that I’m very proud of, not just as an Education Minister but

as a parent as well.

This year’s budget, as well, is historic for the K-to-12 sector.

We are putting, I would say, an amount I’m so proud of, $8 billion, into

the K-to-12 sector. This is a commitment that we took on since 2017. We

have invested in more than 60 schools since 2017. I can talk about

Surrey as well, which the member has raised. Since 2017, we have put

$475 million in capital projects, which has created more than 10,000

seats, putting our students out of portables and into new, expanded

schools, which they deserve.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

PATTULLO BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT

T. Halford: What’s historic is the absolute failure by this NDP government.

When it comes to portables, they campaigned to eliminate them and have

zero. We actually have more than ever, 10 percent more than when they

made the commitment.

Results matter. It’s a fact that this NDP government continues to

fail when it comes to matching Surrey’s rapid growth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Halford: One of the things they first did…. We talk about the Massey

Tunnel. Scrap the Massey replacement bridge, $100 million

gone.

Then what do they do? They delay the Pattullo Bridge and reduce

its scope. They stuck Surrey taxpayers, because of their community

rip-off agreements. To add insult to injury, they’re going to replace a

four-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge.

I think some members may know this, but when they originally did

the Pattullo Bridge, four lanes, 15,000 people resided in the city of

Surrey. In years to come, there are going to be 900,000 people in the

city of Surrey.

My question is a simple one to the minister of state of

infrastructure and transit. They are failing so spectacularly on this

bridge replacement. Why don’t they do the right thing and make this

bridge a six-lane bridge already and get it done?

Hon. D. Coulter: Yes, thank you to the member opposite for the question. I’m more

than happy to talk about what we’re doing in Surrey when it comes to

transportation, and south of the Fraser in general.

The Leader of the Opposition just made a zero. Let’s talk about

zero tolls on the Port Mann Bridge.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Thank you.

Hon. D. Coulter: A regressive tax on the hardworking citizens of Surrey and south

of the Fraser.

Let’s talk about the Surrey-to-Langley SkyTrain.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. D. Coulter: We’re building a major piece of infrastructure south of the Fraser

for the people of Surrey and Langley, a piece of infrastructure that the

opposition never even talked about during their reign.

Interjections.

[11:00 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Coulter: It’s true. How many times did they reference SkyTrain? Zero. How

many times did they reference a subway? Zero. How many times did they

reference rapid bus? Zero.

So please, please, again make the zero sign.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Coulter: Have them make the zero sign, Mr. Speaker, and we’ll talk about

zeros.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Well, Members. Members. It’s good to see both sides are smiling,

at least.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR

HEALTH CARE IN

SURREY

E. Sturko: Once again, the NDP are all talk, no action.

Interjection.

E. Sturko: They sure do.

The reality is that the NDP just don’t know how to get their

projects done for the city of Surrey.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Members.

Please continue.

E. Sturko: They’re failing spectacularly on health care as well. Not only is

the promised….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh. Members.

E. Sturko: Not only is the promised second medical school already years

behind schedule, but there was no money in the budget for it. Another

zero. My goodness.

As if that that wasn’t bad enough, the Surrey Board of Trade

released a report revealing how woefully inadequate health care is in

Surrey. Anita Huberman says: “If you have a heart attack, a stroke,

trauma, need specialty services for your child, you need to go to

another hospital across the bridge.” Yes, that would be the four-lane

Pattullo Bridge that you would have to get over.

The new so-called hospital doesn’t even have a maternity ward —

zero maternity ward, which is ridiculous in the fastest-growing city in

British Columbia.

My question to the Premier is: why is the Premier abandoning the

residents of Surrey by offering them absolutely nothing new in terms of

health care in this budget?

Hon. A. Dix: We’re building a second hospital in Surrey.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members. Let’s have the courtesy to listen, please.

Please. Thank you.

Continue.

Hon. A. Dix: The Leader of the Opposition is bringing his usual insightful

thought into this debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It’s okay. Shhh. Members.

Order, Members. Members, please.

Hon. A. Dix: The person who sold the land, the person who stopped the second

Surrey hospital being built, after he promised it — the person who

failed the people of Surrey, who doesn’t represent them anymore — that

person shouldn’t be talking about hospital care in Surrey. We build the

hospital; he sells the land.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: In 2008, there was a proposal from the Fraser Health Authority and

SFU…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. A. Dix: …to build a second medical school in Surrey. Who was against it?

He was against it. Now, the medical school and the hospital that he

stopped — he’s complaining about it.

We are building a second medical school; we’re building a second

hospital. Here’s what else we’re doing. Here’s what else we’re

doing.

Interjection.

[11:05 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member. A question was asked. Now let’s conclude,

please.

Minister, please conclude.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I could go on. I could go on.

The Liberal government failed the people of Surrey on health care

more than any other government in the history of B.C. We are delivering

for the people of Surrey with UPCCs, adding diagnostic care, adding

surgeries, adding a second hospital, adding a second medical school. We

are delivering to the people of Surrey.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh. Members.

Members, I really….

Members, what is this? You know, we are mature, grown-​up

people. The question was asked; the question was answered. It’s the end

of the question period. Stop it now.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Office of the Auditor

General of British Columbia’s report Fraud Risk and Financial

Statements: B.C. Public Sector,

Part 1.

J. Routledge: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Routledge: Joining us today for the first time are leaders of the B.C. Ferry and

Marine Workers Union. Please join me in giving Eric McNeely, Jennifer Seper,

Paula White and Dan Kimmerly a warm welcome.

F. Donnelly: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Donnelly: Members of the Coquitlam Fire and Rescue, IAFF 1782, are in the House

today. Joining us are Steve Piccolo, Steve Farina, Chris Bond, Keegan Gordon

and Gary Sehn. I’d like to acknowledge the work of these brave firefighters,

which they do every day to keep our community safe. Will the House please

join me in thanking them.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Chair advised everybody at the beginning that we will

make a general introduction, which we did, to welcome all firefighters, so

that we don’t have to redo it again and again.

Okay, thank you so much.

Reports from Committees

MERIT COMMISSIONER

APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

M. Starchuk: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Appoint a Merit Commissioner, a copy of which has been deposited with

the Office of the Clerk.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

M. Starchuk: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

M. Starchuk: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I’d like to

make some brief comments.

Starting in June of last year, the committee carried out a

comprehensive recruitment process. We’ve received and carefully

evaluated many qualified applications and concluded our work with the

unanimous recommendation that David McCoy be appointed as British

Columbia’s next Merit Commissioner.

All committee members appreciated David McCoy’s extensive

experience in B.C.’s public sector human re­sources processes, his

attention to outcomes and his knowledge of the work and commitment of

the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

We are confident he has the experience, abilities and qualities to

provide effective leadership to the important, non-partisan, independent

position of the Merit Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, David is in the gallery

today. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming and

congratulating him on his new role.

On behalf of all members of the House, I would like to express our

appreciation to Maureen Baird for her service to British Columbians as

Merit Commissioner from January 2020 to January 2023 and as acting

commissioner since January 13 of this year.

[11:10 a.m.]

I also want to extend my sincere gratitude to the Deputy Chair,

the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, and all the committee members

for their thoughtful advice and commitment throughout this appointment

process. Those committee members were from North Vancouver–Seymour,

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and Richmond North Centre.

And a big thank-you to those staff, Kate, Jenn and Suzie, for the

guidance that they provided to the committee in coming forward with this

decision.

M. Morris: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale pretty much summed everything up

here very well. It was an extended process. I too would like to extend

our appreciation to the Clerk’s office for their guidance and assistance

during this extended process; and for the patience of all the committee

members, as well, as we negotiated our way through some extraneous

circumstances here.

I think the outcome speaks for itself. I’d just like to compliment

everybody on the committee for a job well done.

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

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF

MERIT COMMISSIONER

M. Starchuk: I ask leave of the House to move a motion recommending that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appoint David McCoy as Merit Commissioner

for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

M. Starchuk: I move:

[That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia recommend to the

Lieutenant Governor in Council that David McCoy be appointed as an

Officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned

to the Merit Commissioner for the province of British Columbia pursuant

section 5.01 of the Public Service Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

385) for a term of three years commencing on March 10, 2023.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call in the main House continued debate on Motion 17, which is in my

name on the order paper.

In Committee A, I call continued debate on supplementary estimates for the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 17 — ADDICTIONS

CARE

(continued)

B. D’Eith: I rise to speak in favour of Motion 17. We’re asking all members

of the House to support the all-party committee’s unanimous

recommendations in the Closing Gaps, Reducing Barriers work; in

affirming support for the spectrum of addictions care, including

life-saving harm reduction measures such as safe consumption sites,

decrim­inalization and safer supply; and a rapid, unprecedented

expansion of drug treatment and recovery spaces.

Now, of course, we all know that the toxic drug crisis is

unprecedented at this time. It’s a public health emergency that’s

touched the lives of people all over B.C. Overdose deaths are impacting

our families, our friends, our neighbors, and all members of this House

know that we need to redouble our efforts to save lives and get people

the help they need to beat addiction. We know there’s more to do, and we

won’t stop working until we turn the tide on this crisis.

It was wonderful to see members from across all parties in this

House come together in this committee to make important recommendations

across the spectrum of addiction care. There were 118 presenters and 881

written submissions. It was a big step to see all-party support for 37

recommendations to fight the toxic drug crisis, including evidence-based

policies of safer supply and decriminalization.

Of course, every member came from different parts of British

Columbia, which is really important, and came together with a consensus.

Ultimately, this work is a work of solidarity, and it impacts all

British Columbians.

[11:15 a.m.]

Now, some of the key themes. I can’t go through all of the report,

but some of the key themes are an overarching government response; a

call for the comprehensive continuum of care that we need; of course,

prevention and education, urgently expanding in-school prevention and

education programs; harm reduction — for example, access to naloxone

kits and including overdose prevention and drug-checking services;

treatment and recovery — substantial increases in publicly funded,

evidence-based and accredited treatment, recovery beds and outpatient

services; safer supply, including access to prescribed safer supply;

enforcement and decriminalization; and the support for successful

implementation of decriminalization and putting mechanisms in to review

the success of these programs.

Of course, looking at this all with a youthful lens as

well.

The members of the committee supported all these measures,

including harm reduction, decriminalization, safer supply and increased

treatment and recovery. In fact, British Columbia is a leader in Canada

in the response to the toxic drug crisis. We’re using more tools than

any other place in Canada. We’ve been carrying out much of this work

starting in 2017.

Prior to the pandemic, the measures that we were taking as a

government were creating a marked decrease in the overdose deaths. Now

we have to continue to build the system of care that we began building,

the four pillars of harm reduction: treatment and recovery, prevention,

and education and enforcement.

Of course, our government is making historic investments in mental

health and addiction services across the full spectrum of treatment and

recovery. In fact, in Budget 2023, there’s $1 billion over three years.

That’s unprecedented. And $586 million of that is for treatment and

recovery, so an incredible commitment to treatment and

recovery.

Now, in my area of Maple Ridge and Mission, there’s been a lot of

work done. I’m really pleased that we have a Foundry in Maple Ridge,

which deals with youth mental health and addictions. We’ve seen some

incredible results from that work. We hear from folks who work at the

Foundry that young people are…. It’s nearly 400 times more efficient in

getting them the help they need than other­wise. It’s really

wonderful to have that program.

I just went recently to two new youth treatment beds at the Maple

Ridge Treatment Centre, which is administered by Fraser Health. We

recently announced eight complex care beds in Maple Ridge, and we have

over 100 supportive housing beds. Complex care is important because this

has added wraparound services for psychiatric and mental health

supports, primary care service, overdose prevention, occupational

therapy and Indigenous support workers, all wrapped around the person.

The beauty of the complex care program is that it’s not just a place; it

follows the person.

Another really important work we’re doing on the pre­vention

side is the ICY work, which puts services in schools. That was actually

piloted in Maple Ridge. We recently announced the expansion of that

program into Mission.

This is happening right across the province. Opening over 360

adult and youth treatment beds — we’ve doubled youth treatment beds. In

the new budget, we’re committed to 100 more publicly funded beds, 42 new

and expanded overdose prevention sites, expanded access to safer supply,

expanded access to mental health supports through community counselling,

the ICY teams I just talked about and, of course, implementing the

decriminalization of people who are using drugs.

Also on the side of enforcement, there are 270 new provincial

police officers being added to help prevent the money laundering and

organized crime that fuels the toxic drug crisis. Also, adding new car

programs, giving supports for mental health in the cars that police

officers and front-line workers are having to do on the street. Of

course, the Peer Assisted Care Teams are being

ex­panded.

There’s also funding for the Tailgate Toolkit to help those

working in construction access harm reduction services. We know that a

lot of people who are suffering from addiction and, unfortunately,

succumbing to overdose are often men aged 35 to 50 working and using

alone. So these are important.

Also, the Premier announced a new model of seamless care, which is

going to roll out through St. Paul’s, and $171 million in Indigenous

treatment.

[11:20 a.m.]

The point is that the work of the committee was ongoing. We’re

ramping this up to support the entire spectrum of support that’s needed:

harm reduction, treatment, prevention and enforcement.

As far as decriminalization, this is a really important step that

B.C. is taking with the federal government. The whole point of this is

to recognize that addiction shouldn’t be treated as a criminal matter

but as a public health matter. Criminalization actually drives people to

hide their drugs, to use alone and to not seek help.

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of men, particularly, are using

alone. We need to deal with the stigma attached to that. Of course,

there’s the increased toxicity of drugs. For people using alone, it’s

deadly for them.

Decriminalizing small quantities of drugs will help fight the

shame and, also, fight the stigma around addictions and break down the

barriers that we need to, to save lives. This is about saving

lives.

This is something that was launched recently. Of course, it was

launched after spending many, many months implementing, training police,

working with health authorities, connecting with people in the

community, making sure there’s public education before it was rolled

out. It is a new program. It’s going to take time to come to its

fruition.

Like many of the other tools in the toolbox, this is an important

program. So it was very concerning this week, after so much support

between all the parties, that the opposition seems to have done a 180 on

this. I’m not sure what is driving this. We did see, for example, their

friend from the federal Conservative Party come and talk about

it.

I’m not sure what’s driving this 180-degree turn on

decriminalization. This should be a non-partisan issue. I don’t know why

the opposition has decided to change their tune on this.

P. Milobar: I’m happy to rise and speak to the motion that has been presented.

To be clear, I think it is important that we have these open

conversations.

We just heard from the last speaker from the government. Frankly,

what politicizes an issue is when you hear the characterizations that

the government continually tries to push towards what our party and our

members have been saying around decriminalization, around safe supports,

around the use of addictive substances and around the need and

importance of proper treatment options.

Our focus has been very much heavily weighted, and we make no

apologies for that, towards the treatment option side of the equation.

For years now, we have heard about this four-pillar approach. We have

heard about harm reduction. We’ve heard about ensuring that there’s

proper enforcement. But there’s also the treatment side. That is

what….

We’ve watched the opioid crisis balloon and explode over the last

six years that this government has been in office. I don’t say that

because this government necessarily created the opioid crisis. We saw

that starting to develop in the final days while we were still in

government as well. In fact, we saw that, across North America, starting

to develop. If you look at the timeline, that’s just the cold reality of

it. The other cold reality of the situation is…. Over that six years,

we’ve watched deaths spike.

As the previous member said, and I agree, it’s people using alone.

It’s people hiding the fact that they have a substance issue. They are

predominantly the ones dying, predominantly younger males in a lot of

professions where it’s usually a work-related injury or something of

that sort that has led to painkillers being prescribed of one sort or

another. That prescription and that treatment start to phase out, and

the next thing you know they’re seeking out their pain relief in other

ways, which are much more dangerous.

[11:25 a.m.]

The problem is that this government, over the last six years, has

not taken meaningful steps to ramp up access to treatment, access to

recovery, access for people and their families to try to gain that

access easily so that a person that does feel the shame of use and is

trying to hide it feels that that treatment option is actually a true

option for them to access, feels that that option is not going to

bankrupt their family, if they try to have that hard conversation with

their family about the need for them to get into treatment.

As much as this government and the previous speaker want to talk

about what’s in this budget, let’s look at what’s not in this budget. We

very clearly laid out a billion-and-a-half-dollar Better is Possible

plan that was heavily, heavily weighted on treatment, to try to get

people the supports and the help they need to get on a road to recovery,

to gain back the meaningful parts of their life so they’re not just

fixated on where their next fix will come from. That’s what our plan has

been built around.

What we see in this budget, unfortunately, and what we hear in the

discussion around this motion is not that from government. That’s

disappointing for us. That’s disappointing because it’s yet another

missed opportunity with this budget that could have been embraced by

this government. Saying that a plan has 190 treatment beds potentially

being built over a three-year lifespan of a budget, with no identifiable

dollars put towards those 190 beds, in the capital sense, in the

three-year plan that’s been presented simply isn’t good

enough.

It pays lip service to something that is literally life and death,

like access to treatment in a timely fashion. That is why our Better is

Possible plan contained no cost barriers to access that treatment. Let

me repeat. No cost barriers. When the member before me speaks about

treating this as a medical issue, that’s exactly what our plan is trying

to do: treat it like a medical issue.

If you break your arm, there’s no cost barrier in British Columbia

to go get your arm fixed. I’m not for a moment trying to suggest that

trying to heal from addictions is anywhere near as easy as fixing a

broken arm — just before the government starts trying to misconstrue

other statements, as they’ve been doing all week.

The point is, if you’re treating it as a health care issue, as

speaker after speaker from the government repeatedly talks about, then

it should be funded as the same. We have private treatment beds right

now sitting empty in facilities on a daily basis in British Columbia

because people can’t afford to access those beds, but there are no

public spaces open. It’s reprehensible that this government, for all of

their talk, flat out rejects the notion of subsidizing those beds in a

surge capacity way, when all of the other public facilities are full, to

get someone into that treatment. That is not in this budget.

What is in this budget is actually a reference of 29.3 days as the

average wait time to seek out treatment in British Columbia. That’s not

good enough. The government in this budget, to bring forward a plan

around this issue of decrim and treatment….

Did they bring in a new benchmark with this budget, that they

would like to see that 29 days get cut in half, down to 15 days? That

still wouldn’t be good enough but still be better. No, they removed all

measurables for access to treatment benchmarking in this budget, moving

forward. We now no longer know what this government would consider even

a moderate success for access to treatment when it comes to addictions.

That’s simply not good enough.

The member opposite says that we’ve done a 180, as an opposition,

around decrim. We haven’t.

[11:30 a.m.]

What we have said is we’ve been very clear about this government’s

lack of action leading up to the implementation of decriminalization,

the letter of requirements from the federal government that spells out

exactly what work this government was supposed to do that they simply

have not done. When they talk about us politicizing this…. Any time we

ask a question, it seems we’re politicizing, especially if it’s a

question about their performance.

We ask very direct questions about things in the letter of

requirements that were not done by this government ahead of

decriminalization coming into British Columbia, as they promised the

federal government they would do, and we’re politicizing things. It

seems like a very convenient way for this government to deflect away

from having to take any responsibility for their lack of action, their

lack of follow-through and their lack of actual commitment to things

that they told the federal government they were agreeing to

do.

We don’t have the data set, the baseline data, this government was

supposed to collect over the last 12 months leading up to

decriminalization, because they didn’t do the work. How can you judge

whether a three-year pilot has been successful or not if you don’t know

what your baseline is that you started with?

With this government, when we bring forward stories from the real

world — what’s really happening on the sidewalks in our communities —

they spin and deflect and say: “Oh, that’s not really happening.” We

just heard it in question period, about violent prolific offenders —

denials from this government.

They will go off and find some random data set to defend their

position. They’re the only ones that will use that data set to defend

that position, but that’s what they will do. You can always find a data

set somewhere.

The letter of requirements was very clear. This government was

supposed to spend the 12 months creating base­lines so that when

decrim came in as a three-year pilot, as a three-year trial for the rest

of the country, frankly, to pay attention to what was going on or not….

Would we turn into Portland, or would we get the results the government

is hoping we get? That’s what a baseline data set was supposed to

provide us — something to measure against.

When we ask serious questions in this House that are literally

life and death for people with addictions challenges, we get told we’re

politicizing it. The government doesn’t want to actually acknowledge

that they have failed on their commitments — not just to the federal

government but to the population of British Columbia.

When we see lip service paid to something as important as recovery

and the timelines of access to recovery…. I don’t think anyone who has

dealt with a loved one going through addictions issues has to be a

recovery expert out there to understand that a 29.3-day wait for access

to addictions treatment just doesn’t work.

Somebody comes to their parents and says: “Mom and Dad, I have an

issue. I was injured on the job. Remember all those medications I got?

Well, those prescriptions ran out. I’ve been self-medicating on stuff

that I get off the street. I don’t want to keep doing that. I need to

get off of that.”

Then the mom and the dad and the son or the daughter try to access

treatment. They start going through all the hoops, and they’re told: “So

29½ days from now, you’ll be in treatment.” What are the odds that that

person, 29½ days later, is going to say: “You know what I said a month

ago? Yeah, I still agree. Today is the day I go in”? Some do. Most

don’t. We all know that.

It’s a hard truth for the government to hear. I know. I appreciate

that, but it doesn’t make it less true. It doesn’t make it politicized.

It makes it what actually happens in the real world.

[11:35 a.m.]

When I go for a tour in Kamloops with the RCMP and other

caseworkers and parents to tour dugouts in our riverbank where underage

girls get summoned to go turn tricks to fuel their drug habit and get

toured through some of the other horrible shacks that this happens in….

The police’s hands are tied. That 14-year-old can’t be compelled to go

get treatment. That 14-year-old doesn’t have to listen to their parents.

That 14-year-old, even though we can see the look in the eye, defends

the person that’s turning them out on the street. The parent has no

standing. It’s gut-wrenching. It’s not politicized. That’s the real

world.

Then you have the conversation with the parent and the sibling.

They tell you about the three or four other times, a moment of clarity

that young girl had, where she did want treatment. She did want access

to recovery, and she wanted to have that while she was separated from

the people that are trafficking her. And they get told it’s a 29-day

wait for that treatment? That’s a failure on this government’s part to

act, plain and simple.

When this government doesn’t want to embrace recovery in a

meaningful way and, instead, puts up speaker after speaker after speaker

on a motion like this to try to focus strictly on decrim, that says it

all. They try to spin why we’re bringing forward questions and concerns

about their failures on this file as politicizing. That says it all.

Frankly, that says they’re more worried about their own political

narratives, which they have spent decades spinning, than they are about

meaningfully accelerating access to treatment and recovery for people in

British Columbia. That is, actually, what they should be

doing.

We’re not saying you can’t be doing all the other stuff. We

haven’t voted against that. Our plan was very clear. Those were pieces

of our Better is Possible plan as well. But to say that wanting a focus

on recovery, a focus on trying to heal people, trying to make people

feel like they have their purpose again in life and interacting with

their families…. To think that’s wrong and to characterize how this

government is characterizing it is just flat out not

acceptable.

We’re opposition MLAs. We’re used to being criticized by

government. We can handle it.

I dare these same government members to look into the eyes of the

parents that I toured around Kamloops with and characterize things the

same way to them that they characterize what we’re saying and doing. I

guarantee none of them will have the temerity to do that. Suddenly they

all doublespeak about all these extra treatment spaces coming in.

Timeline to be determined. Locations to be determined. Capital funding

to be determined. Staffing to be determined.

That’s actually what’s in the budget. In fact, in the budget…. The

one area that they’ve been talking about for the better part of two

years now, complex care…. When they talk about that in this budget,

which does, again, tie into this overall piece that we’re talking

about….

[11:40 a.m.]

In one strange moment of clarity, at least, of forthrightness by

this government, they actually acknowledge, in black and white, in their

budget…. Obviously, it got by the editors, the way this government has

been operating. It actually says that as the complex care beds are being

physically built, they will be built without any staff in the near

future. We’re going to have more beds sitting empty for people to be

cared for.

These ones are actually publicly funded beds that peo­ple

won’t have access to. That is the problem. Six-plus people a day dying

should be enough of an indication to this government that what is

currently happening is not working well enough. They can cite COVID.

They can cite all these other factors. Other jurisdictions have dealt

with that, and other jurisdictions have seen the curve bending much more

significantly than anything we’ve seen in British Columbia. Those

jurisdictions have started to rely heavily on treatment and recovery,

where cost is not a barrier.

That was the whole premise of MSP coming in, in the first place —

of medical, free universal health care coming in, in the first place.

Now, back when it first started, it was still things like broken legs

and other things like that. It didn’t put a family into bankruptcy for

basic medical treatment. Over time, governments of all political stripes

in this country have agreed on that fundamental right and have added and

added what is actually covered under universal health care. I think

everyone agrees on that.

I know the Minister of Health and previous Ministers of Health

sometimes have to make tough decisions of what qualifies or doesn’t

qualify. The governments have to make that based on technological

advances and everything else like that.

With treatment and recovery, that’s not what we’re talking about,

though. We’re talking about a government whose ideological makeup is one

that doesn’t believe strongly in recovery and treatment, which is why

six years have been spent on harm reduction and a “safer supply” and

decriminalization. If the same amount of effort for the last six years

by this government had been put into treatment and recovery options at

the same time, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in right now, with

people waiting over 29½ days.

It seems to me that the group of people that are objecting to

things being discussed on this topic is actually the government as it

pertains to recovery and treatment. They’ve had six years. They’ve had

seven budgets, two Premiers, three Finance Ministers, three Mental

Health and Addictions Ministers, no meaningful advancement on the

numbers of treatment.

They will cite new beds. What they won’t tell you is net new. They

won’t talk about the centres they closed down while building a new one.

They’ll talk about 20 beds here or 18 beds there or 26 beds there. They

won’t talk about the 18 or 19 that got closed down or defunded by this

government at the same time.

They won’t talk about the need this government feels to bring

everything into the health authorities, which, when we talk about all

things health care, has been a disaster over the last six years. They

don’t want to acknowledge and figure out how to work with the existing

private treatment centres. Now, if those private treatment centers need

some other form of accreditation or things of that nature — we haven’t

heard that from this government — then take those steps.

They’ve gone out of their way to regulate engineers. They’ve gone

out of their way. Look at Bill 36 to regulate all sorts of things.

They’ve spent six years not dealing with the addictions and treatment

area in a meaningful way.

[11:45 a.m.]

It gets a little tiring when you hear continually that we’ve

suddenly done a 180 or that, as opposition, we’re actually doing our

jobs in questioning the government, critiquing the government, and

trying to find where things could be made better, or not, by this

government. Ultimately, that’s what we need to see. That’s what the

opposition is supposed to do. If the government starts to feel

uncomfortable because of the questions we’re asking, you just have to

ask yourself: what does that feel like in your own family

dynamic?

I know that when I was a teenager and my parents started

questioning me a little too much, and they weren’t buying the answers I

was giving, I started to get a little more internally nervous that maybe

they weren’t buying what I was selling to them that week, because I

didn’t want to get in heck for something that happened at school. I

think that probably has happened to all of us.

That’s what this government reacts like when they get asked

questions. When they get asked to defend their pol­icy choices,

when they get asked to defend their spending priorities, and lack

thereof, they get very defensive, and they use very defensive language

about it.

When we reviewed, when the public reviewed, when the media

reviewed, but most importantly, when people that are in the space of

recovery and treatment, when peo­ple that have accessed recovery

and treatment with their own lived experience have looked at our Better

is Possible plan…. There were a lot of people validating it, because it

was meaningful. It was legitimate. It was viewed as being

well-thought-out, well structured and would actually have a positive

impact on things.

We haven’t heard any of that type of language about what the NDP

government has proposed in this budget — none. We’ve heard a few things

around dollar figures of spending. I think some of these groups are

optimistic that it means there’ll be a bit more money into the system

that hasn’t been in there before. But as we’ve seen, with anything from

health care to crime and safety, to affordability, to housing, to

addictions, more money with this government doesn’t mean a better

result. In fact, it has been meaning the exact opposite, budget after

budget.

It’s the seventh budget where we’ve heard “historic,

unprecedented” — the seventh in a row, yet ever-worsening results in all

of those areas I’ve just touched on. With this motion…. It’s interesting

the government would want to bring this motion forward, first off,

instead of regular legislation, like we would normally be dealing with,

but that’s okay. This is a very important topic to talk about for

British Columbians, but it’s disappointing to hear government member

after government member trying to characterize it.

If you go back and listen and look at their comments…. To my point

about recovery and treatment, those are very lightly referenced and

rarely talked about in their speeches, because they just simply don’t

believe in it. If the government doesn’t believe in it, no wonder they

get ever-worsening results when they just keep pouring money into the

same programs.

There’s no one steering the ship. It’s the third Mental Health and

Addictions Minister we’re on under this government, ever-worsening

results under each and every one of them. The one constant has been the

Health Minister, who actually overarches them, especially when you look

at the budget. Let’s be real. If the Health Minister doesn’t approve it,

there’s not a whole lot of money going on, other than for staffing, in

the Mental Health and Addictions portfolio.

[11:50 a.m.]

There is nothing wrong…. In fact, the opposition has been

encouraging, imploring the government. We released our Better Is

Possible plan for that very reason, so the government could see that

better is possible and the government might actually embrace recovery

and treatment like we have.

That’s not what they’ve done. Their budget hasn’t done it. Their

speeches on this motion certainly haven’t done it. I don’t know why —

after six years of waiting, with ever-increasing death and carnage

around us — we think something different is going to change simply

because they’ve added more money in a budget, while saying all the same

language around it, at the same time, that they have for the last six

years, while failing to do the most basic requirement before decrim came

into effect, which was to actually collect data. It’s so we know what a

baseline is to start from, so we know whether, three years down the road

with decrim, things have actually gotten better or not in British

Columbia, what data sets to point to.

People that full on don’t want any form of decrim are going to

need convincing in three years that it actually worked. If you don’t

have baseline data, it’s going to make that work that much harder.

That’s 100 percent on this government’s shoulders that they did nothing

about getting that data set ready over the last 12 months.

They agreed to it. They told the federal government they would do

it. They just then ignored doing it. As we’ve seen with a great many

things with this government, they actually don’t want a measurable. They

don’t want to tell us what they consider a success or a failure in a

program.

How do you re-evaluate if a program is working or not on a wide

range of issues if your government, if you, don’t even know what your

endpoint is trying to achieve? Their endpoint seems to be seeing how

many dollars they can put in any particular program and call it a

day.

People in the here and the now in British Columbia want results.

Most importantly, on this topic, they want free and open access to

recovery and treatment options that simply do not exist in British

Columbia and are nowhere on the horizon based on this budget. That’s why

this motion and the government’s words on it are so

disappointing.

G. Kyllo: It’s extremely concerning what we’re seeing happen in this chamber

today, specifically with this particular motion that’s up before us. A

record number of British Columbians continue to die from the opioid

crisis. Six individuals a day — daughters, sons, uncles, aunts, mothers,

fathers — and what we have seen from this government is a proclivity to

just throw more money at a growing problem. There is a need for

immediacy, as my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson shared with this

House.

Those that are struggling with addiction challenges need to have

immediate access to care. There are treatment beds available in the

province today. I know of a specific facility that has 40 beds. Of those

40 beds, ten are publicly funded. There are only an additional ten beds

that are only currently being utilized on a fee-per-pay

basis.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There are 20 beds that are available. Treatment beds that are

available in this one facility, 20 alone. This government has the

opportunity to provide funding for additional beds tomorrow. But what do

we hear from this Finance Minister? That we’re going to continue to

build more infrastructure — in the minister’s words, “brick by brick,

board by board.”

[11:55 a.m.]

British Columbians need support now. Six people a day are dying,

and there’s no focus on this government to provide the treatment that’s

necessary. I think the challenge for this government is to try and

explain to British Columbians why they’re continuing to wait and to

delay the opportunity for treatment beds and provide a path for

individuals with addictions to get on the path to recovery and to get

off of drugs when beds are available today.

Noting the hour, I reserve my opportunity to speak again and

adjourn debate.

G. Kyllo moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning. I call Committee of Supply

Section A to order.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the supplementary

estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

On Vote 40(S): ministry operations, $1,495,000,000

(continued) .

D. Ashton: I would like to pass it along to my peer from the Green Party. We

can let him go first.

A. Olsen: To the minister: congratulations on your new post.

Just a question with respect to…. The Union of B.C.

Municipalities, for the most part of a decade or longer, has been

advocating for fiscal reform, top to bottom. What we have here is a

one-time benefit that I don’t think any mayor and council are going to

reject or complain about publicly. In fact, they’ll be very happy to get

it. However, it further adds to the systemic issues that they’re facing,

which is that they have to balance their budgets every single

year.

Has the minister considered taking a similar model to the one that

has been today, which now that we’re debating $1 billion, and making it

available to municipalities on an annual basis so that they can fund the

unfunded priorities that the provincial and federal governments don’t

fund through their granting programs?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you for the question. The local government finance

resilience review is still progressing between my ministry and members

of the UBCM. Your question to the $1 billion fund — it is a one-time

fund, but they have five years to use it. So local governments will be

able to use the allocations of money for the years to come.

[11:20 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I appreciate the minister noting that the process with the Union

of B.C. Municipalities is ongoing. It’s a project that I think started

more than a decade ago, and there has been an incredible reluctance, I

think, on behalf of the provincial government, the previous government

and the current government, to actually reform the fiscal framework for

local governments.

weekend about the largest single investment in municipalities. This is a

one-time gift, unfettered cash, when regularly the money from grants is

fettered in all sorts of ways by the provincial government. What

municipalities need is something more in line with what is being

contemplated today, which is a $1 billion that municipalities can spend

on their priorities, rather than spending it on the priorities of the

Premier or the priorities of the Finance Minister.

Would the minister consider proposing a similar model to the one

that’s being proposed today, for this one-time expense, to give access

to resources for municipalities of all sizes — scalable, of course, to

the size of the municipality — in order to help with the regular and

ongoing needs of those municipalities, that are the priorities that are

set by the community members and their constituents?

Hon. A. Kang: The local finance resilience review with UBCM and the Ministry of

Finance is the most recent report. It was from January of 2022. So it

may not be over a decade, but we will continue to work very hard and

engage with members of UBCM. This funding is one-time funding in

nature.

[11:25 a.m.]

These initiatives are anticipated to provide long-term supports

and benefits to British Columbians and all 188 local governments that we

have here in the borders of British Columbia. This includes initiatives

to support health, affordability, reconciliation, climate, emergency

preparedness and infrastructure supports for communities throughout B.C.

These priorities are not just our priorities as a province but they are

also the priorities of local governments.

The Chair: Member, before you continue your questions, I did want to

remind you that we are on the supplementary estimates. Let’s focus

on the actual supplementary estimates overall, and we’ll have a

better opportunity to do the broader budget discussion.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that we’re talking about

decisions around $1 billion of taxpayer money and a decision that was

made by this minister on how it’s spent. I am canvassing

that.

I think what is reflected here, in the seats on this side of the

House…. I’m not going to point out any members who are or who are not

here, but I would suggest that there are a considerable number of us

sitting on this side of the House that were formerly on local

governments. We all have been part of the process, over the last decade

or more, pleading with the provincial government to reform the fiscal

framework.

Those one-time gifts, the granting processes we have set in place,

have not been sufficient to ensure that municipalities have been able to

develop sustainable infrastructure and the sustainability of governing

their municipalities. The reality is that local governments are required

to balance their budgets year over year, and provincial governments are

not.

My question to the minister: was it ever considered to turn this

$1 billion that’s being granted, in these supplementary estimates, into

a permanent fund that could be drawn down for requests made by local

governments?

I use the example, in question period today, about a fire hall

that doesn’t currently fit within any of the granting programs. That’s a

fire hall. Just because it doesn’t fit within the government’s funding

programs, it doesn’t mean that the community on Salt Spring needs a fire

hall any less. Nor is it necessarily fair that the community on Salt

Spring should have to cover the entire costs of their fire

hall.

There’s a lack of flexibility. A permanent fund, from which local

governments could request — for projects such as the fire hall, or such

other projects that my colleagues here have been making decisions about

— is nevertheless needed.

Was it ever considered to create a permanent fund with this that

could go on in perpetuity, giving access to municipalities — all 188, as

the minister mentioned — to do funds that are priorities set by the

community?

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I appreciate your feedback. I do want to

emphasize that we are focusing specifically, at this time, on this

funding. I understand the validity of your question, which I do

fully appreciate, but I do want to emphasize that we are focused

specifically on this grant. Obviously, what you ask can be asked at

a broader time when we’re talking about overall

estimates.

A. Olsen: I just asked if there was a decision point or an option made to

the minister, brought to the Finance Minister, so that rather than

expending this fund as a one-time dispersion, it would be turned into a

permanent fund that could be drawn down. I think that’s a legitimate

question for this $1 billion expenditure.

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much for the question. I won’t be able to speak to

Treasury Board deliberation. What I can tell you is that we know this

year’s surplus is unlikely to happen again, which is why we are tabling

supplementary estimates right now.

Initiatives funded through the supplementary estimates are all

one-time in nature to help advance the key priorities of

government.

A. Olsen: I think we’re going to be having a discussion later, in a

different ministry, about the watershed fund, which is set up in a

similar way to the one I just described: to create some permanence with

the money, the windfall that the British Columbia government has right

now — the surplus, as the minister pointed out.

One final question, a similar question to the one that I asked

about the municipal fund, the $1 billion. There’s $45 million of this

money that’s going to libraries. Similar to local governments, libraries

have been pleading, for more than a decade, for the provincial

government to increase the per-capita funding.

[11:30 a.m.]

Governments have been all too happy to advance small numbers of

millions of dollars — a few million here, a few million there — to

support libraries, a critical infrastructure in our communities for

supporting equitable and universal access to information for our

citizens. Yet sustainable funding, year over year, has not ever been

given by the provincial government to meet the needs of

libraries.

Was it considered by the minister, in making a recommendation to

the Finance Minister — about these budget estimates that we’re talking

about today, the supplementary estimates — to turn the $45 million into

a sustainable fund that could help cover the costs of libraries over the

long term, rather than just a short-term, one-time fix?

Hon. A. Kang: I have a strong passion for libraries as well. The province is

aware of the social and economic pressures faced by communities and

libraries providing services. I just wanted to clarify that the $45

million that we are providing to libraries is in addition to the $1

billion of the growing communities fund. This is a separate

item.

It is also the request of the libraries…. They have made the

request for over three years, so this one-time funding is equivalent to

three years’ worth of library funding. I will continue to consider how

we can better support libraries and continue to be in good conversations

with them.

To answer part of the question, as well, this funding will be able

to help address the changing demands for local services, lifelong

learning and workforce skills, more accessible spaces and digital

collections.

[11:35 a.m.]

This will also help libraries adapt physical and virtual library

spaces to make them safer, more inclusive and accessible; extend

services developed during the pandemic — we know they were working, and

people really want them to continue; build a core provincial public

library collection of digital resources that people can access with

their library card; and as well, strengthen the capacity of libraries to

serve people, to plan for right now and for the future.

A. Olsen: Not a question. I just want to state to the minister that I

recognize that the money that is being invested right now is going to be

overwhelmingly accepted and that people, both in libraries and

communities, will be pleased with the investment.

The point that I’m making is that when we are expending these

large sums of money, we need to, I think, do them with some long-term

sustainability and resilience in mind. There have been long-standing

requests from both the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, as well,

libraries for sustainable annual funding, not a hit of cash now and then

a desert, and then it hit of cash and then a desert. We need to have

sustainable funding.

That’s the point that I’m trying to make today, not that this is

not going to be a welcome investment on behalf of all of those community

leaders. It absolutely will be.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate the opportunity to ask you a couple of questions.

They’ll be short and quick.

I know that you did a tour through the East Kootenays not too long

ago, and you had the opportunity to meet with my mayors. I have two

regional districts in my riding, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district

and the regional district of East Kootenay, which incorporates the towns

of Golden and Revelstoke, and so on and so forth.

I know that you met with those mayors, and grateful that you did

that. Everyone is very thrilled with the dollars that they’re going to

get. It’s certainly going to help my communities.

I do have a concern, though. That concern is that, aside for a

meeting with two electoral area directors, Linda Kay Wiese and Grace

McGregor, in the West Kootenay or Kootenay-Boundary, you didn’t meet

with the area directors in areas like I represent.

The reason I ask this question is some of these regional districts

are actually bigger than the…. I’ll give you, for example, the regional

area F, which is represented by an elected representative and is

actually bigger than Inver­mere, has infrastructure from golf

courses to ski hills and generates massive amounts of revenue for our

area.

I’m wondering if the minister wouldn’t mind telling me why you

weren’t able to meet with those area directors, because they are very

important to our area, obviously, and generate wealth. Quite frankly,

I’ve heard from several of them, and they’re not pleased that they

didn’t get a call.

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member across. Thank you so much for your passion

and your advocacy for your community.

In the five days that I was on the road, I was able to meet with

28 local governments. There are no priorities between one or the other.

It was just the time constraint that I had.

[11:40 a.m.]

The reason why I started with small communities is because I am

very passionate in serving small communities and understanding their

challenges. So I was there in full passion and conversation with

them.

I will be visiting more communities in the days and months to

come. I want to thank you so much for highlighting the importance of

visiting the area directors in your community.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that answer. Then I can take it you were just too

busy to meet with them, because they’re there. They didn’t get a call,

and everybody else did. You met with two in

Kootenay-Boundary.

I just need something more than, “I’m going to meet with them

again,” which is great. I hope you do; I would appreciate that. But why

was the East Kootenays kind of not recognized in that whole

process?

The answer — I guess I get it — is that you only had a limited

amount of time. And you have committed to meeting with those area

directors down the road, if that’s what I understand. I just want that

for the record.

The Chair: Members, just a reminder. That’s a bit out of the scope for

supplementary estimates.

D. Clovechok: Well, it actually speaks directly to the $1 billion.

The Chair: Okay. If you can tie that back, that’d be much

appreciated.

D. Clovechok: I’m going to do that in just a second.

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is yes, I will meet with your area directors. I will

meet with as many local governments as possible. It is my endeavour that

we work in collaboration, build rapport and build friendships.

That’s

the way that I approach my ministry. I want to thank you for your

questions and highlighting how important your community is, because they

are very important to me as well.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I know they will be happy, and I will assure

them that they weren’t overlooked. You just had a very busy

schedule.

The last question I do have is…. I do have in front of me the

breakdown of all of the funds that were given to the communities, not

only in my riding but also in Kootenay East. It seems…. We did an

allocation-per-capita breakdown. It’s kind of all over the board when

you look at: this community got this much based upon

population.

I’d just really be interested in the formula that you used to make

those calculations, because there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme nor

reason to how this place has less population but got more money than the

place that had more population. I’d really like to know what formula or

the process that you used to come to the decision on those

dollars.

Hon. A. Kang: When we designed the growing communities fund, we wanted to make

sure that we covered the full coverage of 188 local governments within

British Columbia, so we looked at the equity between small communities

and large communities.

[11:45 a.m.]

Within the formula, we have a higher per capita for smaller

communities, and we have a larger total sum for larger communities

because we know they have a lot of infrastructure that they need to

modernize. As well, we did look at differentiation based on needs. That

is illustrated through the population but, as well, the population

growth.

D. Ashton: Very quickly, has the one-time expenditure that the government is

seeking at this point in time regarding this file been reviewed and

approved by the Treasury Board? The minister — I can get an answer

after, or a verbal one. That’s fine and dandy.

I know time is of the essence. I just want to say thank you to the

minister. I look forward to future estimates, which we’ll do some other

time. Thank you to your incredible staff for the job that they do on a

continual basis, including those in the back.

Last but not least, please keep in mind the opportunities between

Indigenous relations and municipalities, because of those close borders

all the time, where those services that municipalities or townships have

— there is an opportunity in the future. By working together, we can

make a difference in everybody’s lives. Thank you very much and thank

you again to the minister.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if she would

like to make any closing remarks before I call for the

vote.

Hon. A. Kang: I really enjoyed working with my critic and with members of the

Green Party. I know that we have shared responsibility in hearing the

feedback and the needs of our different communities. I know this will be

an amazing journey that we all take together as we continue to see how

we can further support our local governments. Thank you.

Vote 40(S): ministry operations, $1,495,000,000 —

approved.

The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. A. Kang: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and

completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Copyright © 2023 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.