Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 197

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

Tributes

Stan Lanyon

Hon. H. Bains

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Harry Kruisselbrink

Hon. N. Cullen

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Hop On Farms in Burnaby

J. Routledge

Firefighters

T. Stone

Stan Lanyon

A. Mercier

Mental Health Week and role of empathy

T. Halford

Child care services

H. Yao

Multiple sclerosis

L. Doerkson

Oral Questions

Affordable housing and government action on issues

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

Services for adults with eating disorders on Vancouver Island

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

Child care spaces and facility in Oaklands area of Victoria

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

Child care spaces and wait-lists

R. Merrifield

Hon. K. Chen

Review panel report on drug toxicity deaths and implementation of recommendations

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Petitions

A. Olsen

Motions Without Notice

Membership change to Finance Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Mental Health Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. D. Eby

T. Halford

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Malcolmson

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 24 — Anti-Racism Data Act

Hon. D. Eby

T. Wat

A. Olsen

R. Singh

M. Lee

Hon. L. Beare

Hon. R. Kahlon

Hon. N. Simons

Hon. R. Kahlon

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

T. Shypitka

D. Clovechok

I. Paton

B. Stewart

S. Furstenau

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

R. Merrifield

N. Letnick

Hon. J. Whiteside

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: B. Bailey.

Introductions by Members

R. Merrifield: I just got out of the most exceptional and inspiring meeting with

young leaders in the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, thinking and

talking about how to advance biodiversity, conservation and Indigenous-led

land and ocean protection in B.C. Would the House join me in welcoming these

young leaders to our midst.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I want to just let the House know that May is a really important month

in our family for birthdays. At the beginning of the month, it is my big

sister Hilary Aulando’s birthday. I won’t say which important birthday it

is, but it is a really important one this year that merits such an

introduction.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hilary is absolutely masterful in all of her endeavours, whether it’s

her vast musical talent and knowledge, her enthusiasm for all things

fibre-related or her incredible green thumb. Most importantly, she’s a

really wonderful mother, grandmother, auntie, friend, and I’m so grateful

that she’s my big sister.

Would the House please help me welcome my sister, a very happy

important birthday.

Hon. J. Osborne: I’m very happy to follow on the introduction and welcome the Canadian

Parks and Wilderness Society young leaders in conservation program members

to the House today.

These young leaders are undertaking a four-month program to learn more

about conservation, how to interact with elected officials and to deepen

their engagement skills in planning for a more sustainable future. They’re

spending today, as we’ve already heard, speaking with MLAs from all sides of

the House about issues related to climate and nature programs in our

province.

As we all experienced in 2021, it was a year of climate emergencies

that sharply raised our awareness and our understanding of our collective

stewardship responsibili­ties. I am so inspired by the passion of

these young leaders in advancing issues like biodiversity, conservation and

Indigenous-led protection in B.C.

As our government works towards a nature agreement with the federal

government to strengthen conservation in British Columbia, to implement the

old-growth strategic review and to co-develop B.C.’s first ever coastal

marine strategy, ensuring that youth have their voices heard is a commitment

we must all take seriously. I’m very pleased they’ve had such a terrific

time in the House today and meetings with other MLAs.

Would the House join me, as well, in making them very

welcome.

G. Begg: Today I have the pleasure of welcoming 17 new staff of the

parliamentary education office. Over the next four months, this group of

college and university students will be offering tours and theatrical

performances to thousands of British Columbians and visitors from around the

world. The Parliament Buildings will be open seven days a week from Victoria

Day through to Labour Day, so be sure to encourage your family, your friends

and constituents to visit.

Would the House please make these young men and women welcome and wish

them all the best for a very busy season here.

Tributes

STAN LANYON

Hon. H. Bains: I rise today to mark a sad occasion. Our province has lost a

dedicated labour lawyer, a skilled arbi­trator and a longtime

executive of Labour Relations Board. Stanley Lanyon, QC, passed away on

May 2.

Those who were lucky enough to work with Stan will remember his

fast smile and even faster wit. He was tough. He was confident. But he

was fair. Above all, Stan was a person of integrity and professionalism,

with a strong sense of justice.

Stan was called to the bar in 1978 and was appointed to Queen’s

Council in 1998. He worked for a number of years as Crown counsel in the

Kootenays before becoming the House counsel for IBEW local 115. He went

on to serve as a chair of the B.C. Labour Relations Board from 1992 to

1996, followed by many years as a widely respected provincial and

federal arbitrator. He was considered one of the finest labour neutrals

in the province. Throughout his long career, he made significant

contributions to B.C.’s labour policy with every decision he

wrote.

As well, Stan was an adjunct professor at UBC, in both the faculty

of law and commerce and co-chaired two 1998 legislative committees on

labour law reform. Stan was highly regarded for his major contributions

to the labour relations community, and he will be sadly missed by all

who knew him.

I will close by saying thank you to Stan for all he has

done.

I ask that this House join me in sending our thoughts and prayers

to Stan’s wife, Susan Irvine; his family; and his friends and

colleagues.

Introductions by Members

H. Yao: I would like to take a moment to welcome my CAs, Amy Li and Dicken

Lau, for joining us in the chamber.

[1:40 p.m.]

All of us here know how important our CAs are for our constituency

office. I often joke that when Amy says jump, Dicken says how high, grabs a

ruler and measures the height, and it will be my job to jump over the

height.

We all know how important they are, from taking care of our calendars

to looking at our cases. I rely on my CAs to do great work.

I want to take a moment to ask all the House to join me in welcoming

my CAs, Amy Li and Dicken Lau, to the chamber.

T. Halford: If you’re lucky enough, there comes a moment in your life where your

parents or your parent will transition and become your friend or best

friend. I remember sitting at a baseball game with my dad. It was Blue Jays

and Cubs, and I kind of made the realization that we had made that

transition. I want to wish my dad a very happy birthday today. Sadly, I

don’t think he’s watching, but I’ll make him aware of this after.

H. Sandhu: Today I am very excited to introduce my cousin, who is very close to

me, Arvinder Khosa. He’s in the gallery, first time ever in his lifetime. I

think he’s going to watch the question period. Arvinder came to join me for

yesterday’s roll-signing ceremony.

Both Arvinder and I…. We’re so close, and we have many fond memories

from childhood. One of them is playing cricket together. Not only that. Both

of us had to come up with the creative solution of making our ball wet with

water so it left a water mark on the player who is out, because often they

would deny or cheat that they were not out. We were also both grandma’s

favourite kids, because we did listen to her words of advice and

wisdom.

Arvinder lives in the member for Surrey-Panorama’s riding. He is a

young entrepreneur, but for 18 or 19 years…. He’s only 38 years old, but I

wouldn’t be wrong if I said that for 20 years, he’s been organizing, playing

and supporting the sports, many sports — before in India, but now, for

years, he’s been living in Canada. He encourages youth to play more sports

and stay away from other troubles. He’s been doing a lot of work on that

front.

Would the House please welcome Arvinder Khosa to the House.

Hon. B. Ma: Now, hon. Speaker, I think you know that you are well known,

disappointed-dad headshake and your biting looks of disapproval that are

capable of causing any member of this chamber to fall in line and to remind

us that even what we believe might be us doing our best is not good

enough.

Well, hon. Speaker, I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this,

but you have met your match. My mother joins us in the gallery

today.

My mother, Jen-Fong Kuo, is a brilliant businesswoman, an accountant —

the best mother that I have. She is also an immigrant from Taiwan. She

immigrated over to Canada in her mid-20s and has overcome so many

challenges, so many barriers to become the sharpest-minded woman that I

know.

She is so committed, so resilient. She works through all sorts of

challenges. I’m so proud to have her as my mother. I’m so grateful that

she’s with us here today. I want to tell her that I love her and that I

literally would not be here today without her.

Would the House please join me in welcoming my mother.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Joining us in the gallery today is Erica Greenup, admin assistant in

the minister’s office for Mental Health and Addictions. She navigates very

important work with generosity and good spirit. Will the House please make

Erica very welcome.

Tributes

HARRY KRUISSELBRINK

Hon. N. Cullen: Today the flags in the town of Smithers will be flying at

half-mast, this in tribute to a man named Harry Kruisselbrink, who not

only sat on Smithers council but was a fierce champion of our small,

beautiful northern town, who passed away just this week.

[1:45 p.m.]

Harry and his wife, Audrey, would have celebrated their 58th

anniversary this month if he had lived. Harry was an incredible champion

of our community. He would often remind me, as he and his wife both

immigrated from Holland and met in Smithers, that you ain’t much if you

ain’t Dutch. But he was, first and foremost, a proud northerner, a

fiercely proud Canadian.

We came from very opposite ends of the political spectrum, but we

had one unifying theme between us in our friendship, which was love of

community, love of place, love of history. I will deeply miss him, as I

know will many in the northwest and others who knew him.

I want to pay tribute to Audrey and send our deepest

condolences.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: I’d like to introduce today five advocates from across south Vancouver

Island. Sara M is formerly from Manitoba and currently living in Saanichton,

in my riding, in the W̱SÁNEĆ territory.

She’s a graphic designer and an artist, on long-term disability for the last

ten years due to a long-duration eating disorder and lived and living

experience of concurrent mental illnesses.

Sally Chaster is from Quadra village, living on

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ territory, and is an

adult with the experience of a long-duration eating disorder. Sally is a

co-founder of the Victoria Eating Disorder Peer Support Group, which has

been running entirely with volunteers for about the last ten years, and

co-founder of the Vancouver Island Voices for Eating Disorders.

Shaely Ritchie is originally from Lheidli territory, living in North

Jubilee, in the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ territory

currently. She’s a registered nurse and has lived and living experience of

an eating disorder and other mental illnesses. Shaely is a dedicated

advocate and co-founder of the Vancouver Island Voices for Eating

Disorders.

Tara Fowler is a proud mother of three and a registered nurse on

long-term disability due to a long-standing eating disorder.

Abby McCluskey has grown up in the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ territory here in

Victoria and is an 18-year-old with lived and living experience of an eating

disorder and other mental illnesses. She is a life sciences student who

plays the fiddle and hopes to go into medicine.

These five advocates come as founders or members of the Vancouver

Island Voices for Eating Disorders, or VIVED, a grassroots collective of

individuals with lived or living experience of mental illness and eating

disorders that formed in 2017. They focus on raising awareness, providing

peer support and advocating for adults healing from eating disorders — and

disordered eating — in our community. These five advocates have done

incredible, powerful advocacy with me and with my constituency advocate,

William Kelly.

I ask that this House please make them all very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I also have a very special introduction to make today.

We are joined today by two senior officials within the Legislative Assembly

administration. Please welcome Manjit Bains, acting and outgoing chief human

resources officer, and Daisy Jassar, the new chief human resources officer,

whose first day is today. Welcome.

Members, also today at 1:55, it is anticipated that there will be a

test of the national public alerting system coming into your devices. This

is a test of the system, and members should not be alarmed by the incoming

message. It probably will be around 1:55.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HOP ON FARMS IN BURNABY

J. Routledge: Hop On Farms has been an institution in Burnaby for 50 years.

Operated by the Hong family, it’s where generations of locals buy their

fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers.

Chan Kow Hong arrived in Canada in 1952, when he was 21, to join

his father, Gay Tim Hong. Together with three others, the Hongs brought

the property on Marine Drive and named it Hop On, which means peace,

partnership and union in Cantonese.

For many early Chinese Canadians who settled in Burnaby, farming

was a way of life. The Hongs joined a historic network of

Chinese-Canadian market gardeners who were once known for selling their

produce door to door. Some even opened successful green grocery stores

in North Burnaby.

[1:50 p.m.]

Chan’s wife, Sui Ha, immigrated to Canada in 1958. They had seven

children, all of whom grew up cultivating crops and the family business.

The Hongs were soon able to buy out their other partners. But even the

second generation are getting on in years and deserve to enjoy their

retirement.

Last month Hop On Farms announced that it would be closing its

retail operations. More than 300 loyal customers expressed their

profound sense of loss on Facebook. Here’s what just one of them had to

say: “My family and the community will miss you. Thank you for making

me, my parents, my children and grandchildren respect fresh

vege­tables and soil. My motto is save the soil, plant the

vege­tables, feed the world. And thank you for doing your part for

these many years.”

This story has a happy ending. The garden centre will reopen to

the public in May, and the produce market will reopen for online

pre-orders.

Thank you, Hop On Farms. See you in a few weeks.

FIREFIGHTERS

T. Stone: It’s an honour to rise today to mark International Firefighters

Day and pay tribute to the dedication, commitment and sacrifice of

B.C.’s firefighters.

This day is particularly special for me for a couple of reasons,

the first being that my father is a retired Vancouver firefighter. I

remember growing up as a kid in Port Coquitlam and my dad saying goodbye

to us and wishing us well. Off he went to work, and often that was

through the night. We’d only learn later, sometimes days later, of the

dangers that he encountered when he went off to work.

Our dads are often considered heroes to us for a number of

reasons. I can certainly say that about my dad. But, growing up, the

importance of his job and the tremendous risk that it posed wasn’t lost

on me. Our firefighters run into situations that most of us would

understandably run away from. They risk their own lives. They risk their

own health. They do all of this to protect all of the rest of us. They

set aside their own fears about the dangers before them, and they do

what it takes to get the job done.

The second reason this day is so important to me is because my

riding of Kamloops–South Thompson in the southern Interior has seen its

share of wildfires and brush fires that have posed tremendous risk to

people, structures and communities, particularly in recent years. We

have watched in awe as firefighters use helicopters, heavy equipment and

other resources to skillfully battle these massive fires, often right in

or near our neighbourhoods. At some of the scariest, most panicked

moments in our lives, firefighters have been there to keep us safe and

to do their best to protect our homes and our livelihoods.

On this International Firefighters Day, let’s all take a moment to

recognize these brave individuals and, in particular, those who have

lost their lives through this line of work as they sought to save others

and whose immense contributions are never taken for granted or

forgotten.

STAN LANYON

A. Mercier: The B.C. labour relations community has lost a giant. Stan Lanyon

passed away this week on the morning of May 2.

Stan was an arbitrator, a lawyer, a former board chair, an

all-around gentleman and a mentor to so many of us. It is so hard to

overstate Stan’s influence in labour law in this province. To my mind,

there are few who could equal the great Paul Weiler at the Labour

Relations Board, but Stan’s impact surely rises to that

level.

I remember he told me an anecdote once about when he set up his

arbitration practice. It took him five years to have a stable set of

clients trying to practice with. It’s because after he left the board

everyone was angry at him because when he was making his decisions at

the labour board, he wasn’t concerned about currying favour or what his

next step was. He was concerned about getting it right, and he

did.

Those decisions — Island Medical Laboratories, which overturned

the Alpulp cases and established the presumption against multiple

bargaining units, and Allied Hydro, which settled numerous legal issues

in the construction sector — are still good law today.

It is a mark of Stan’s reputation that if you were in front of the

labour board or another arbitrator, and you brought a Stan Lanyon case,

and you said, “That’s not how Stan sees it,” people would put their pens

down and listen to you. But you had to be careful because you knew when

that decision-maker, that vice-chair or arbitrator left the room, they

were phoning Stan to say: “Is that really what you thought?” You had to

get it right.

[1:55 p.m.]

That’s just a hallmark of Stan. He was a gentleman, and he was

accessible. He always made himself available to lawyers, young and old.

Arbitrators, he mentored. It’s fair to say he mentored generations of

us. He never stopped being curious. I know at the end of his career, I

asked him what he was planning to do, and he was auditing divinity

courses at SFU, because he never stopped being curious.

I’m a better lawyer, a better person for knowing Stan.

Stan, we’re going to miss you.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

AND ROLE OF

EMPATHY

T. Halford: Throughout the pandemic, many of us have felt the increased toll

on our mental health — some, due to the isolation, financial impacts and

the loss of loved ones. Now more than ever, we understand just how

widespread mental health challenges are and how they can affect any of

us.

The stigma around mental health, however, continues to be a

barrier. It’s time we break down that barrier. This week is Mental

Health Week, and this year’s theme suggests it’s an opportunity to get

real about mental health.

There are many things we can do to support our loved ones, and it

starts with empathy and choosing to listen without judgment. Just the

simple act of tuning into another person’s feelings and trying to see

where they’re coming from can allow the other person to feel seen and be

heard. When a loved one is facing a mental health challenge, we might

feel the urge to step in and immediately offer a solution — swoop in and

fix things. Sometimes the best thing we can do is listen and show that

we understand.

I encourage everyone here to take some time this week and ongoing

to practise empathy. You can explore the many resources offered by the

Canadian Mental Health Association to learn more, or take the time to

reach out to loved ones and show that you are here for them. We can all

be champions for empathy in our workplaces, our schools and our

communities.

A good piece of advice is before you weigh in, tune in.

CHILD CARE SERVICES

H. Yao: May is Child Care Month, and I want to start to with a huge

thank-you to all of the B.C. child care professionals. I know firsthand

the difference child care professionals make in the lives of

families.

My wife and I toured Aspire Richmond’s Seedlings Child Care site

earlier this year. We shared our fears and concerns with the idea of

leaving our daughter in someone else’s care. The staff acknowledged and

validated our concerns, and thoroughly reassured us with their

professional knowledge. We were exceptionally impressed.

Throughout this challenging time, child care has remained a vital

service for families and communities. Child care helps parents,

especially mothers, return to work and pursue opportunities. That’s why

we are delivering our commitment to ensure child care is a core service

available to every family that wants it, when they need it, at a price

they can afford. Parents in my community of Richmond have seen more than

$55 million in direct savings since the launch of our plan. As we enter

our fifth year, I’m proud of our progress.

Parents are saving up to $1,600 a month per child through our

affordability initiatives, and thousands more are paying $10 a day or

less in our 6,500 $10-a-day sites. With the federal government, we will

nearly double the $10-a-day spaces by 1,250 by December. We have funded

more than 35,500 new child care spaces, and we’ll work with our federal

partners to more than double this by March 2028.

Early childhood educators are the heart of child care. We invested

in ECE recruitment and retention, including bursaries, training and

professional development support, and are enhancing ECE compensation by

$4 per hour. There is more work to do, but we’re committed to work with

all our partners to make child care a core service for B.C.

families.

Please join me in celebrating Child Care Month by thanking the

child care professionals for the incredible work they do each and every

day.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

L. Doerkson: May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. Multiple sclerosis, or

MS, is a chronic autoimmune disease of the central nervous system. This

means that MS can affect your vision, memory, balance and

mobility.

[2:00 p.m.]

Each person living with MS will face unique and unpredictable

symptoms, and the disease may progress over time. As an episodic

disability, the severity and duration of illness can vary

greatly.

More than 90,000 Canadians live with the disease and experience

the physical, emotional and financial effects of MS. Canada has one of

the highest rates of MS in the world, with an average of 12 Canadians

being diagnosed every day. Many of these people are between the ages of

20 and 49 and will continue to live with the disease’s unpredictable

effects for the rest of their lives. We know, however, that MS does not

only impact individuals but also families and, of course,

communities.

To this day, we still do not have a cure for MS. This is why on

the first Wednesday of every May, Canadians across the country join

together to show their support for the MS community through a carnation

pinning. Since 1975, the carnation has served as the symbol for hope for

the MS community as the MS Society has been raising awareness and

fundraising for research.

I hope that everyone in this House today will join me in

participating in the virtual carnation pinning. Together, we can all

work toward a world free of MS.

Oral Questions

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

ISSUES

P. Milobar: It seems that daily we’re confronted with more and more data

showing that this government just simply is not addressing the

affordability crisis in British Columbia. As the housing crisis

continues to get worse every day, people are losing hope with the NDP’s

empty rhetoric and lack of results.

New research from Ipsos shows that three-quarters of those who

don’t own a home in B.C. say that they have given up on ever owning a

home. This is the worst level of housing despair in the entire country,

and no wonder. Under this government, it takes 36 years now to save up

for a down payment on the average Vancouver home. But instead of giving

people hope, the NDP made sure to give themselves a $20,000 pay raise to

cabinet.

Why has this NDP cabinet given themselves a pay raise instead of

giving people hope to find affordable housing?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, the minister remuneration formula is the same

as it was five years ago, when those folks were on this side of the

House.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? You know what has not changed from the

time the B.C. Liberals sat on this side of the House? That has not

changed. What has changed is a government that has been investing in

housing since the day we took office.

You know what else has changed, Mr. Speaker? We got rid of MSP.

We’ve increased social assistance cheques — the highest increase in our

province’s history.

You know what else has changed, Mr. Speaker? The seniors

supplement. We doubled it.

You know what else has changed, Mr. Speaker? We provide rent

supplements.

You know what else has changed, Mr. Speaker? Child care

fees.

You know what else has changed, Mr. Speaker? ICBC

rebates.

You know what else has changed, Mr. Speaker? We have reduced car

insurance in this province, when they set it on fire.

We still have lots more to do, and we’re committed to keep doing

that.

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

P. Milobar: I noticed that the minister didn’t address the question around

housing, which has actually become the most unaffordable under the five

years — the two terms, the half a decade — that this government has been

in office. Housing continues to climb out of reach for the average

person under the NDP, plain and simple, by any measure, and all we get

from the minister and from government is empty rhetoric and empty

results.

Yesterday the new housing statistics for Vancouver showed that the

average price of a Vancouver home has risen $600,000 under this NDP

government. Now, to put it in a perspective that the cabinet can

understand, that’s about 30 times the pay raise they just gave

themselves in this budget. In Surrey, the average price of a home has

nearly doubled. It’s no wonder that three-quarters of the people in B.C.

who don’t own a home have just simply given up under this NDP

government.

Once again, with more and more people giving up on housing, when

will the NDP move beyond the empty rhetoric and actually start

delivering some results for British Columbians?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: B.C. has more than twice the number of homes under construction

than in 2012, when Kevin Falcon was the Finance Minister. When Kevin

Falcon was the Finance Minister in 2012, the number was 31,000 homes

under construction. Under us, in this last year, 2021,

67,500.

Our plan is to build the homes that they didn’t.

S. Bond: Ashlee Jessee is a young mother who moved from Victoria to Vernon,

with her two young children. She was hoping to find a place to rent, an

affordable place. Instead, she’s actually been forced to live out of a

motel room as she struggles to find a two bedroom apartment to house her

family.

Under the NDP, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in

Vernon has risen by $4,000 a year, and we’ve heard nothing from the NDP

MLA from Vernon on this file.

Can the Attorney General tell Ashlee why, despite his rhetoric, he

has failed to deliver the affordable housing the NDP promised British

Columbians not in one election but in two consecutive

elections?

Hon. D. Eby: I was really concerned, as well, to read about the story the

member did. This family is living in a motel that was leased by B.C.

Housing as COVID space. The member will remember that, during COVID,

B.C. Housing purchased and leased many temporary spaces and long-term

spaces to get people inside and off the street. I’m glad that we have

the space available to get that family inside and provide them with

emergency support, but it’s not enough.

That’s why we have 585 homes that are either complete or underway

in Vernon; 169 are open; 416 are underway. That includes affordable

rental homes for families and seniors, homes for Indigenous people,

homes for people experiencing homelessness and homes for

students.

We’re doing a lot of work in Vernon and across the province — in

fact, more than 32,000 homes right now under construction or

completed.

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

S. Bond: Well, the Attorney General managed to get one thing right in that

answer when he said it’s not enough. He’s absolutely right. It’s not

enough. In fact, time and time again, this Attorney General is all about

rhetoric and no results, whether it’s his catch-and-release justice

system, losing big court cases and now on the housing file.

Let’s look at what the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives has said. They said the NDP have opened less than 10

percent of the 114,000 affordable housing units they promised. This

Attorney General and Premier promised British Columbians life would be

more affordable. Here we are, halfway through their housing plan, and

their friends at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said 10

percent. Rhetoric, no results.

The NDP also promised a $400 renter rebate in not one but two

elections in a row. Guess what. They have failed to deliver. The last

time we asked the Attorney General about this question, many weeks ago,

he said: “We’re working on it.”

How long does it take to work on it? A legitimate question to the

Attorney General after two promises in two elections. Mothers, like

Ashlee, are depending on it.

Interjection.

S. Bond: I’ll finish the question if it’s all right with the Attorney

General, instead of him looking at his watch.

Interjection.

S. Bond: Well, maybe it’s time that he looked at his watch and recognized

how long it’s taken him to deliver on a promise to British Columbians. I

can tell you it’s taken a long time, far too long.

When will the Attorney General end the empty rhetoric and finally

do something, on his watch, for British Columbians?

Hon. D. Eby: I realize it’s question period, but I didn’t realize it was a

question period. That was a very long question.

Interjections.

[2:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: They’re not listening.

Come on. Members. Members will come to order now.

Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. They don’t want an answer from me, because

they know their history. They know the story of what they did on

affordable housing, including projects like Little Mountain, where they

bulldozed a community and left a vacant lot for a decade.

They don’t want to hear that in the first three years of this

government, we registered more rental housing than they did in the

previous decade. It seems like it is a good time for an update on where

we’re at on the affordable housing file.

The community housing fund — we’ve built 8,843 of 14,350 homes.

That’s 62 percent. And 705 of the 1,500 units…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …of the women’s transition housing fund; 3,414 units of our

2,500-unit target in the supportive housing fund; 1,195 of 1,750 units

in the Indigenous housing fund.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: And 1,894 units of 2,000 units in the rapid response to

homelessness fund; 13,590 units in the…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member from Kamloops.

Hon. D. Eby: …HousingHub; 5,860 of 8,000 units in student housing. The members

will know that’s housing for students that government can build. They

didn’t to a lot of that.

So 35,501 units either in municipal approvals, under construction

or complete.

SERVICES FOR ADULTS WITH EATING

DISORDERS ON VANCOUVER

ISLAND

A. Olsen: The structure of outpatient eating disorder programs on Vancouver

Island is unique in B.C. and shrouded in secrecy.

In all other regions of the province, programs are administered

through health authorities, yet the South Island eating disorders

program is delivered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

This program has held responsibility for treating children, youth and

adults struggling with eating disorders since the mid-1990s.

During the pandemic, despite surging demand, the program cut adult

services, including counselling, dietitians and psychiatrists, offering

adult clients a monthly phone call and access to a few online groups. It

simply isn’t enough.

Two years after the start of COVID-19, patients continue to

confront a new complete termination of treatment due to staffing

shortages and funding issues. This policy has left countless adults

without access to vital services who continue to struggle

daily.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Why is her ministry tasked with treating adult mental health disorders

on southern Vancouver Island?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question.

We do know that eating disorders are a very serious mental health

issue, and they do benefit from early intervention at the earliest stage

possible. We know how difficult it is to access services as

well.

As with many other mental health issues, during the pandemic we

have seen an increase, unfortunately, in these types of disorders. We’ve

responded to this increased need by working with the Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions and health authority partners and contracted

agencies and partners, as well, to make sure that we can support

integration across the continuum of eating disorder services.

We need to make sure that the most vulnerable populations receive

services, so the priority populations that have been focused on have

been children under the age of 19 and adults with acute presenting

issues as well.

We’re increasing the number of clinicians. We’ve recruited two

clinicians into the program. We were able to provide support to adults.

Where there had been a temporary suspension, they were able to complete

their programming. An eight-week program had been provided that did

provide coping skills and nutrition as well.

We will continue to assess and adjust the service as the staffing

levels are adjusted as well.

[2:15 p.m.]

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

A. Olsen: The response is simply not good enough. The question was not to

provide a laundry list of actions that my guests, clearly, are in

disagreement with. They’re coming to my office seeking support because

this provincial government continues to let them down.

The question was: why is it that the Ministry of Children and

Family Development is dealing with adults who are suffering from mental

health crises and eating disorders? We have a Minister of Health. We

have a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. On southern Vancouver

Island, curiously, it is the Ministry of Children and Family Development

that is standing up and answering this question.

With all other local resources running over capacity, and patients

in need being confronted with lengthy wait-lists…. This goes for all

resources — adult mental health services, such as psychiatric and case

care work; general practitioners; and tertiary services at St. Paul’s in

Vancouver. The only services immediately accessible are emergency

medical services. Even then, we’ve heard consistently over the last

number of weeks how long wait-lists are in ERs and wait-lists for urgent

and primary care centres and wait-lists for walk-in clinics.

Adults who are struggling with eating disorders cannot access

timely, evidence-based services when they’re faced with these lengthy

wait-lists. Eating disorders have the highest death rate of any mental

illness. When people in crisis are refused urgent care, it is quite

literally a death sentence.

The advocates who are here today wanting an answer, because they

haven’t been able to get it any other way, have been seeking answers to

this question that I asked previously and this question for

years.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Children and Family

Development. When will full services, including individual counselling

and dietitian services, be re-established for all adults seeking help

for eating disorders on Vancouver Island?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question.

Many years ago, when the service was created, it was decided that

in order to provide a seamless service, the service would continue to be

available to adults aged over 19, really thinking about the transition

of those children and young people who had been receiving services in

the clinic and for them to have that seamless transition to make sure

that they’re supported into a healthy adulthood.

I’ll add that our government has actually announced a $6.6 million

investment to expand eating disorder services and supports, and that

includes peer supports as well; and to make sure that there is more

timely access for the kind of care that we know that people, British

Columbians, need.

This included supporting regional health authorities to hire more

staff to expand existing eating disorder services and funding to the

Looking Glass Foundation for Eating Disorders to support increased

access to virtual peer services and people living with an eating

disorder.

The situation here on the south Island is continually under

review. As we recruit more staff, we’ll be able to adjust

services.

CHILD CARE SPACES AND FACILITY

IN OAKLANDS AREA OF

VICTORIA

K. Kirkpatrick: I don’t think there is any better illustration of this NDP

government’s empty rhetoric and lack of results on child care than

seeing an empty, unused building across from Oaklands Elementary here in

Victoria.

In 2019, there was this big, splashy NDP announcement promising

that “morning routines will soon be easier for parents.” This government

loves to make big, splashy announcements about all of the child care

spaces that are being opened. Earlier this week 30,500 spaces have been

funded, but I think the members of the other side of the House should be

actually embarrassed by the numbers being announced when the reality is

it’s rhetoric and these spaces are not opened.

[2:20 p.m.]

Three years after this 2019 announcement in Victoria, there are no

spaces open. Mira Laurence of the Oaklands Community Association says:

“These buildings are going to sit empty unless we find the people to put

in them that can provide this child care.”

Can the minister tell families that were counting on these spaces

why they sit empty three years after they were announced?

Hon. K. Chen: We know that parents in B.C. have been struggling to access

quality, affordable child care spaces. That is why since 2019, as soon

as we became government, we’ve been working on a comprehensive plan to

accelerate the creation of spaces, to lower parent fees and, at the same

time, supporting early childhood educators, who are so critical, to fill

those spaces.

We’ve made significant progress in the past few years to make sure

that we have the fastest space-creation ever in B.C.’s history. I’m more

than happy to take back the situation that the member just mentioned and

look into it with our staff and figure out how we support providers to

create those spaces.

The reality is that during the past few years, we funded and

supported the creation of over 30,500 spaces. Among them, over 10,000

spaces are already in operation, and more of them will be coming into

operation in the coming years.

I just want to put this into perspective. While, in a few short

years, we’ve funded and already have 10,000 spaces in operation, with

more to come — because 30,500 have already been funded — here’s the

truth. From 2001 to 2017, and this is how it could take time to build

spaces…. In 16 years, there were only about 10,000 spaces that were

funded by the government. But in the few years, we’ve almost tripled

that.

We are proud of the progress that we’ve made, when the other side

of the House actually neglected the crisis for many, many

years.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: The rhetoric escalates, as do the empty daycares. That is what

we’re getting from this minister — continued rhetoric.

The pictures in the media say it all. There are chairs propped up

on top of these tables. There are mats on the floor. There are

bookshelves. There’s everything except children and educators in this

child care centre.

In estimates yesterday, the minister admitted that they’re only

training half of the 2,000 ECEs needed each year. So because of the lack

of staff, not only are spaces that were announced three years ago not

open, but Mira also says: “We don’t have enough child care providers

today to maintain the services that we have right now.”

Instead of continued rhetoric from this minister, will the

minister take action so that more spaces don’t close under her

watch?

Hon. K. Chen: I really need to remind the member opposite that if the investment

we made during the past few years — including space creation, saving

parents millions of dollars in savings and also supporting early

childhood educators through our comprehensive strategy — were made even

just seven years ago, parents today would have much more access to

affordable, quality, high-services child care.

We are well underway. We’re continuing to fund spaces to support

early childhood educators, to support providers, with historical

investment into child care. During the past few years, we’ve invested

$2.7 billion in child care. And when it comes to supporting early

childhood educators to fill the spaces, we understand. It is a

challenge.

Early childhood educators have been struggling with low wages and

a lack of support for many, many years, for decades. That is why, in

2018, we wrote our comprehensive strategies to support their wages,

training and also education. Our bursary program has been really

popular, with more and more early childhood educators being registered

under our ECE registry. Our wage enhancement, a $4-an-hour wage

enhancement, has moved up an average wage. When I started this work in

2017, it was about $18 per hour. Now it’s about $25 per hour for early

childhood educators.

Of course, we know we have more work to do. We’ll continue to

support early childhood educators. We’ll continue to increase funding

for providers

This is what Christine Jackson…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: …an early childhood educator in­structor, has to say about

our investment. Christine said, and I hope the member opposite can hear

what the sector is saying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: She said: “It’s probably kind of the brightest time ever to come

into early childhood education. It seems like people in power really

understand now more than ever before.”

CHILD CARE SPACES AND WAIT-LISTS

R. Merrifield: It’s evident that this minister has no issue pumping out press

releases for imaginary spaces or going through a laundry list of how to

create imaginary spaces, but that’s not what parents in British Columbia

want. They want accessible and affordable child care.

By the minister’s own admission yesterday in estimates, less than

a third of the spaces that have been publicly announced, just like the

ones in Victoria, are actually open. And after five years, the NDP have

created less than 5 percent of the 200,000 spaces that are

required.

We’ve got lots of rhetoric, but results? Not so much. A young

couple in Kelowna says: “We were on wait-lists two years before our

daughter Polly was born and four years before our son was born. We

thought it would be enough, but our daughter will go to kindergarten

before we find a spot for either.” Results matter.

Why are parents like these stuck on wait-lists for years under

this minister and this NDP government?

Hon. K. Chen: I understand the opposition members have no experience in funding

child care and creating a comprehensive system for B.C.

families.

Again, here is the truth. We’ve funded and supported the creation

of over 30,500 spaces. And about 10,000 of those spaces are already in

operation, which is the same amount that the B.C. Liberal government,

when they were in government, created in 16 long years. And we’ve done

that. We’ve tripled that. And we’ve done that in four short

years.

Of course, we have more work to do. If the spaces were funded

years ago, they would have become in operation by now and serving many

families. But we know we have to start the work. In 2018…. We’ve had the

fastest space creation ever in B.C.’s history. We’re bringing savings to

parents with $10-a-day child care, the affordable child care benefit,

with low-cost child care to thousands and thousands of families, and by

the end of this year, we’re going to cut child care fees by, on average,

half.

We have more work to do. But here is what Keosha, a parent who

happens to be an early childhood educator, has to say, who has been

grateful for the funding and the support that our government has been

creating so she can stay in the workforce. But as a parent, she said:

“The CCFRI funding and $10-a-day child care space have changed my life

and made it possible for me to focus finances on other day-to-day living

costs.”

That is what parents are saving across the province. We have much

more work to do, but we’re not going to take any lessons from the

opposition members when they neglected the crisis for many, many

years.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, hon. Speaker.

With all due respect, I’m going to counter something that the

minister just said, because the B.C. Liberals actually, in 2015, created

more daycare spaces in Surrey than the NDP has done under this minister

in all of B.C. in any other given year. After half a decade, this NDP

government has been all rhetoric and no results.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s get the question, please. Members.

R. Merrifield: Communities like Surrey have half the national average of child

care spaces. They need 20,000 child care spaces just to meet the

Canadian average.

Melanie from Surrey says: “I’ve been on a wait-list for two years

for my kindergarten child, and we still don’t have a spot. More than

half of my income went to child care last year. I’m very frustrated, and

I seriously don’t know what I will do.”

Why are so many families like Melanie’s being left to languish on

wait-lists by this NDP government?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I really hope the member opposite can look into their data,

because what we have is that we’ve already nearly tripled the number of

spaces, in four years, than their 16 years in government. In Surrey, for

example, just by the end of last year, not even including the most

recent announcement, we already had over 2,100 spaces that were funded

by the government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: …along with many other spaces that are being created.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: In the Surrey community alone, close to $200 million has gone into

parents’ pockets, to help them to create savings. During the past few

years, we’ve really, really worked hard to make sure we accelerate the

creation of spaces and we find parents savings. For the first time in

B.C.’s history, child care costs are going down, not going up in B.C.’s

history. When the opposition were in government, they actually took away

parents’ savings.

For early childhood educators and in terms of supporting

providers, the very diverse sector of child care providers, we’ve

increased operating funding, wage enhancement, funding to maintain their

spaces. And we’re going to continue to do more, while the other side of

the House neglected the crisis and is still not willing to work with us

on our Childcare B.C. plan.

REVIEW PANEL REPORT ON

DRUG TOXICITY DEATHS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

T. Halford: Yesterday we learned the tragic news that 165 people suspected of

illicit drug toxicity deaths were recorded in the month of March. In a

sad comparison that we heard today, that is a fully loaded Boeing 737

crashing every month in this province. That is what I heard

today.

Surrey remains one of the leading cities for overdose deaths, and

the Fraser Health Authority has the highest rates of deaths occurring in

private residences. While people continue to die, the government has not

committed to meeting the May 9 deadline to develop a 30/60/90-day action

plan requested by the overdose death review panel.

Now, every minister has been handed a 30/60/90-day action plan in

their own ministry when they were sworn in, and they should know that

when the coroner recommends one, it needs to be done. The Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions has already missed one critical

deadline.

My question is this. How many more deadlines will she miss, and

will she commit to meeting the May 9 deadline?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question and for the opportunity

to say in this House what we are all saying to each other and in our

communities. It’s that the continued loss of life in this toxic drug

public health emergency is tragic. It is unacceptable. It’s something we

are working, as a government, every day to combat. And we will not stop

until the public health emergency is declared over and more lives are

saved.

I’m thankful to the people on the ground, from family members to

firefighters to first responders to people working in harm reduction and

treatment and recovery across the sector, people working hard to save

lives.

The report of the coroner’s death review panel confirms the

urgency and the breadth of the work that we have underway right now. For

example, British Columbia is the only province to implement a safe

supply program, prescribed safe supply, which is what we are able to do

as a province within our health care system.

We’re the first and only province to propose decriminalization of

people who use drugs, a recommendation affirmed that we already have

underway. We are waiting for a reply from the federal minister on

whether our application will be approved. It’s something that the death

review panel confirmed, something that we’re working on every day to

complete.

The death review panel reaffirmed and confirmed the work to build

out the continuum of care from harm reduction to medication-assisted

treatment to inhalation overdose consumption sites to treatment to

recovery, filling gaps in the system every day, making new announcements

of new supports in Surrey and other communities almost every

week.

That’s work we’re determined to carry on, with the partnership of

the coroner’s office, of the public health office and partners on the

ground. We’re grateful to all of them for working under extremely

difficult circumstance, and we continue to work with urgency

together.

[2:35 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

A. Olsen: I rise to table a petition with 887 signatures from the Vancouver

Island Voices for Eating Disorders, requesting the House take urgent action

to support adults struggling with eating disorders in our

community.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE

TO FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to replace a member on the Select

Standing Committee on Finance.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That Renee Merrifield , MLA replace Lorne

Doerkson , MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on

Finance and Government Services.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 23, Mental Health Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, the Committee of Supply estimates, I

call continued Ministry of Education and Child Care estimates debate.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — MENTAL HEALTH

AMENDMENT ACT,

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

The Mental Health Act provides the authority and sets out the

criteria and procedures for the involuntary admission and treatment of

patients experiencing serious mental illness. The act also contains

protections to ensure that these provisions are applied in an

appropriate and lawful manner.

Safeguards for the rights of involuntary patients include rights

notification, medical examinations at specified time periods, second

medical opinions on proposed treatment and access to review panels and

the court. The amendments proposed in this bill will strengthen the

protections available to involuntary patients by establishing an

independent rights advice service to help ensure that patients are aware

of their rights and are supported to exercise these rights if they

wish.

This bill will grant the Attorney General the authority to

contract with one or more independent service providers to deliver the

rights advice service. Specially trained rights advisers will be

available to meet with patients to explain what it means to be an

involuntarily patient, to provide information…

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Attorney.

Would members please take their conversations outside. Let’s

listen to the Attorney General. Thank you.

Hon. D. Eby: …and answer questions about rights and options available under the

Mental Health Act and to refer patients to a lawyer or advocate if a

court hearing or review panel hearing is requested by the

patient.

These amendments will set out the patient’s right to speak with

the rights adviser and specify when they must be informed of this right.

The rights advice service will be available to all involuntary patients

regardless of age, as well as children and youth under 16 who are

admitted by a parent or guardian as voluntary patients. In addition,

near relatives will also be notified in writing that the patient has the

right to meet with the rights adviser.

The amendments will set out the duties of rights advisers as well

as the responsibilities of directors of designated mental health

facilities to facilitate access to the rights advice service. Finally,

the bill will also grant authority to make regulations respecting the

rights advice service, including setting out additional circumstances

when the rights advice service must be notified.

The rights advice service is planned to be implemented through a

phased approach. In the first phase, rights advice will be provided to

involuntary patients on their request. In the second phase, the rights

advice service will be automatically notified, and meetings between the

involuntary patient and the rights adviser will be proactively set up at

key points. However, patients will always have the right to decline the

meeting.

[2:40 p.m.]

The automatic notification of the rights advice service is key to

ensuring that the service is accessible to all involuntary patients. The

specific circumstances of automatic notification will be set out in a

future regulation, following additional engagement and consultation with

key partners and stakeholders. Future engagements will also address

policy considerations with respect to implementation, including the

mechanism for public accountability.

The rights advice service has been recommended by the B.C.

Ombudsperson and the Representative for Children and Youth, and it is

supported by many legal, mental health and professional organizations.

The service will also bring B.C. in line with six other Canadian

provinces that have independent rights advice services under their

mental health legislation.

T. Halford: I want to thank the Attorney General for his comments.

I do believe that this bill can be a step in the right direction.

When we talk about the fact that individuals, when they’re experiencing

some of the most challenging times of their life, need support, they

need advocacy. It is also a step to satisfy both the Ombudsperson and

the Representative for Children and Youth, who have called for

this.

You know, making sure that people understand what their rights

are, no matter what situation they’re facing…. I remember that growing

up, I had an aunt who suffered from extreme mental illness, and I

actually didn’t meet her for a number of years. She was at Riverview.

This was in the early ’80s, and I wonder what support, what advocacy she

would have gotten at that time and who would have explained what her

rights were and who would have explained what she could try and

do.

It’s a challenge when you have some of these people that…. When

individuals are faced with these experiences, you wonder where they go

after they come out. Is there a home for them? Is there a support

network for them? I think that these are some of the things that I know

that all of us grapple with in this House, and this affects every

constituency. All 87 ridings are facing these challenges.

I think it’s important that when we canvass…. We’ll have a chance

to canvass this in the committee stage, on getting clear timelines for

when this will happen, what will meet the criteria. But I do think that

it is important to make sure that we are giving every British Columbian,

especially those that are facing some extreme challenges, the right to

understand what their rights are. I look forward to canvassing this with

the minister in committee stage.

M. de Jong: When the legislation was tabled a couple days ago, I was thinking

back on my time, many decades ago now, as a young lawyer in the late

’80s and very early ’90s. I would, periodically, get a call from

officials at Riverview — generally Riverview but occasionally a couple

other facilities — and the scenario was always the same. Someone had

been detained and was residing at the mental health facility at

Riverview under the terms of the Mental Health Act, and the time had

come for a review of whether or not that person should continue to be

detained.

We used the terms voluntary or involuntary. Generally, the

assumption was that people didn’t want to be in that facility and were

there because it was determined that they were either a threat to

themselves or a threat to society. In many cases, the threat they posed

to themselves was through one of neglect, of not being in a position or

capable of looking after themselves, of taking the medication that had

been prescribed for them on a regular basis to deal with their

particular mental health challenges.

[2:45 p.m.]

I would jump in my car in Abbotsford and drive out. At the hearing

— it was called a hearing, although that probably makes it sound far

more formal than it was — there would be a doctor from Riverview. There

would be another doctor or official associated with either the facility

itself or the health authority, as it was then configured. Then, if the

patient was lucky, they would have a patient’s advocate, and that’s

where someone like me would step in.

You’d show up, and you’d have a few minutes to talk to the patient

in advance and try to get a sense of what their views on the matter

were, what their concerns were, what their preferences were. Then you’d

attend this meeting that would take place with the patient, if the

patient was capable of attending, and really be a set of eyes and ears

and a spokesperson for that patient to determine whether or not what was

being sought — the recommendations from the other officials around

continued detention — were appropriate for the individual.

I don’t want to suggest that, at least in my experience, these

were necessarily adversarial proceedings, because they generally

weren’t. But two things became particularly clear to me through those

experiences. That is, it would be a very, very difficult exercise for

someone — for an individual, whether that person was a child or an adult

— who, by definition, is suffering from some mental health complications

and challenges, to undertake on their own.

In fact, the mere task of filling out some of the documentation

required to initiate a review…. That’s one of the rights a patient has —

to initiate reviews, of their own accord, in advance of particular

statutorily required reviews. Even that would prove a challenge beyond

the capacity of some, not all, people. Engaging with medical

professionals who were presenting clinical evidence would be a challenge

for any of us, never mind someone who may be heavily medicated, may be

sleep-deprived. Having someone that was in a position to be there,

ensuring the interests of the individual, of the patient, are being

protected and advanced, is very important.

There’s a second component to that that occurred to me at the

time. Because of how grateful the officials — the other officials,

health-related officials — were to have someone there with the patient,

acting on behalf of the patient, it didn’t take me long to figure out

that in many instances, those people simply weren’t available. Many,

many patients were obliged to undertake this exercise on their own,

independently.

If I say, “suffered for it,” I don’t want to overdramatize,

because I don’t want to, in any way, impugn the motives or behaviour of

the other officials who partook in those exercises. But it’s clear that

it would have been — and today it would remain the same — very

challenging for a mental health patient in a mental health facility to

undertake one of those hearings to ensure that their rights and their

options were being fully explored. It would be very difficult for them

to do that, in many cases, on their own.

[2:50 p.m.]

The idea that we would be formalizing…. We have, I think, come a

long way in the intervening decades in recognizing the pervasiveness of

mental health issues. I think that that’s a very good thing — reducing

the stigma attached to the public awareness.

The decentralized approach to the presentation of care obviously

has changed as well. I think the number of people who find themselves in

this position has increased. So formalizing the mechanism by which

people in those circumstances have access to an advisor, I think, is a

good step. I think that it makes sense. We will, in the course of the

committee stage debate, I think, get a better idea from the Attorney how

the regulatory powers will be discharged and who the government and he

contemplate as being appropriate for the training that’ll be provided to

be a rights adviser.

I’ll say, at the outset, that I don’t think that it has to be a

lawyer. This is pretty specialized work as it relates to the Mental

Health Act. So I don’t think it’ll be the position of the opposition —

certainly not mine — that in all cases, it has to be. The fact that the

person plays something of an advocacy role does not to my mind suggest

that they need to be a lawyer. But the Attorney, I think, will share

with the committee — I hope he will — what the government has in mind in

that respect.

The fact that it is provided for and that the new

part 5 — I think

it’s

part 5 — of the act will be incorporated into the act, I suppose,

gives it a formal dimension that we can all take some comfort in. I’m

not sure that the act provides any additional powers that the Crown

didn’t possess or doesn’t possess today that would allow for this to

occur, but I suppose the fact that it will be enshrined legislatively in

a new

part 5 of the Mental Health Act will ensure that it is there and

very visible and give it the power and force of legislation. That’s a

good thing.

I will say this, drawing on some ancient personal history. For a

segment of our society that has attracted more positive awareness, but

in an area where there is, perhaps, still some lacking attention,

according to the report of the Ombudsperson, ensuring that people who

find themselves in circumstances that are very challenging and, as I

say, by definition, may be experiencing mental health and mental

capacity issues that would not position them well to engage in any kind

of a bureaucratic exercise….

Ensuring that the state has stepped forward to provide additional

support apparatus and support personnel to ensure that their rights are

protected and explained to them in the very best way that it can strikes

me and, I think, strikes the opposition as a positive step. That’s why

the government will enjoy support from the official opposition, at least

with respect to this step.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m honoured to rise in support of this bill.

Broadly, across the sector, British Columbia has been working to

build that seamless integrated system of mental health and addictions

that people can access when and where they need it, no matter who they

are, the size of their pocketbook or where they live. That is the aim

that we are building towards, and since 2017, government has been

working to patch holes in a fragmented system that was long in the

making.

Historic investments in mental health and addictions support

across the spectrum of treatment, recovery, and harm reduction has been

at the forefront. The historic investments in the 2021 budget, which we

continue to implement, help us to move beyond just filling gaps and

shift, instead, towards that system redesign that British Columbians

deserve.

Introducing, in this year’s budget, a first-of-its-kind complex

care housing project, recognizing that there are people who have been

alienated from housing supports by virtue of their untreated and their

past inability to access mental health and addiction supports, often

people living with acquired brain injury, to house 500 people in complex

care housing…. Health authority–led is another example of a

systems-level change.

Wanting every child to have their best possible start, we are

working with multiple partners, multiple ministries, many levels of

government, to give every young person their best start. That’s at the

forefront of our ten-year plan, Pathway to Hope, for designing that

system of mental health and substance use care in British Columbia,

recognizing that investments early in a young person’s life can set them

up for success and for a life of good mental health and can prevent

small problems from turning into big ones.

We are funding life-saving initiatives in crisis supports. The

peer-led action teams that were announced just last week, or two weeks

ago, in North Van, Victoria and New West are another new way of

addressing people in mental health crisis, with peers, instead of having

to turn to police in every case. That kind of coordinated response is

something that already, on the North Shore, has been proven to generate

results, having been in existence just since November.

We are creating funding for early psychosis intervention — again,

a systems-level change, where we can attend early. This particularly is

focused on young people. That’s 100 new full-time positions in every

part of the province. We’re also ensuring that more people can get

access to mental health counselling by funding 49 community service

organizations across the province. That’s something that we stood up

during the early days of COVID, but funding that continues. Already,

nearly 25,000 people have been able to access mental health counselling

services.

Also working with the First Nations Health Authority, whom we

fund, for them to deliver Indigenous-led mental health

supports….

Eating disorders funding in every health authority — $6.6 million

that we announced about nine months ago — continues to be fanned out.

Recognizing the Looking Glass Foundation on Eating Disorders, who is

celebrating their 20th anniversary, is also a funding partner with us,

one that we are funding already, just in the last couple of months. With

the new funding that we’ve given them, they’ve been able to connect 50

more adults and young adults with counselling to overcome eating

disorders, a terribly life-threatening mental health challenge which has

been exacerbated through the pandemic.

All of these are system-level changes that every week, almost, are

being stood up, with our ambition that, year over year, people will see

substantial changes in access to supports and services.

Another example. The new Red Fish Healing Centre for Mental Health

and Addiction opened on the former Riverview lands last fall, on the

lands that we now know as

səmiq̓ʷəʔelə — again, state of

the art, bringing together concurrent mental health and addictions

challenge treatment that has been a difficulty to access in the past,

leading the continent in the type of care that’s being delivered to

people.

Today’s debate on the independent rights advice service that the

Attorney General has introduced in his areas of the Mental Health Act

that are the Attorney General’s responsibility is again a very important

part of our work on systems change.

[3:00 p.m.]

Involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act can be an

extremely challenging time for people that are already in crisis — and

challenging, absolutely, for the people that care for those individuals.

The new legislation will allow for amendments to the Mental Health Act

so that people who are involuntarily admitted under the act will be able

to access support from an independent rights advice service. They will

help people understand their rights and the options available to

them.

Having heard from the Ombudsperson, the Representative for

Children and Youth and other independent officers of the Legislature and

the province that British Columbia should have had this in place a very

long time ago — we’re out of step with the rest of the provinces — it’s

another example of systems change to help people be able to better

connect with care and for them to be well treated and treated in a

dignified way.

Services will start off as virtual, using video conferencing and

phone — again, for that equal access across the province. Some in-person

services will be available in certain circumstances. We’d like this to

be up and running as soon as possible, certainly by early

The implementation of the rights advice has been guided by many

organizations across the province that often give us advice and also

guided by advice of the Ombudsperson and the Representative for Children

and Youth. It’s available for youth under age 16 admitted as a voluntary

patient by a parent or guardian and otherwise available to all

adults.

In conclusion, the protection of involuntary patients who are in

our province’s mental health institutions — setting out those patients’

rights, allowing them to be able to speak with that independent rights

adviser, helping them navigate the system at a most tender time, when

the way that our health care system should meet people in crisis is the

dignified and appropriate health care response — will be guided by the

independent rights adviser, again with the patient ultimately in control

of what advice they take on, and in the care of our health care system

and all the very dedicated people working on the front line.

We’re grateful to see all of these parts of government and all of

the parts of the health care system come together to support families

and people in crisis.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the attention and indicate

my support for the legislation.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to the Mental Health Act amendments that are in

front of us today.

This bill has certainly been a long time coming. For a lot of

British Columbians, the Mental Health Act is an outdated piece of

legislation, originally written in the 1960s and not been substantially

updated since 1998.

It’s interesting to listen to the comments and the speeches today.

It all sounds quite mild, really, and measured.

I think that we should be considering the experience of people, of

British Columbians, who are accessing mental health care, particularly

in emergency situations, and what that experience can actually feel

like. I don’t think many would use the word “tender.” I think that to

describe it as a potentially challenging experience doesn’t quite

capture that it may, in fact, and probably often is, be

traumatizing.

There are whole generations of British Columbians who have

ultimately experienced harm under the Mental Health Act in this

province. The act has coercive control. It gives near total authority to

hospitals and facilities over people’s health choices, and it

perpetuates harmful ster­eotypes about people with mental health

illness. The act prioritizes discipline and authority and treats people

with mental illness as a failure in self-control.

This certainly demonstrates a historical perspective on mental

health, but we are no longer in that place where we recognize that

mental health is not something that should come with stigma, that should

be treated by authoritarian means. It is a health care issue.

[3:05 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Imagine, Madam Speaker, having one of the worst days of your life,

trying to manage a mental health illness, feeling frightened, feeling

desperate, seeking emergency psychiatric services in an attempt to feel

better.

We’ve all been told there should be no stigma. It’s okay to speak

about mental health and well-being, and it’s okay to reach out for help.

But you might find yourself in a facility where, instead of that empathy

and compassion that you are seeking, you find yourself stripped of

autonomy, restrained, confined, having your phone removed, lacking

outside connection and with no one to give advice to you.

This is what the amendments are proposed to address. I think it’s

really important to consider the data on this — that between 2005 and

2018, involuntary treatment in B.C. for mental health increased by 79

percent. There is a real need to ensure that people’s rights are

protected in these circumstances.

The changes that Bill 23 proposes are a step to bring this act

into the 21st century. Implementing an independent rights advice service

brings British Columbia in line with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador. We are only just

joining other provinces in offering these fundamental rights.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that when you are

detained in Canada, you have the right to legal advice. But when someone

is involuntarily detained under our provincial Mental Health Act, they

are not offered this service 51 percent of the time, according to our

Ombudsperson. So a person in severe crisis, experiencing one of the

worst days of their life, goes to hospital, whether voluntary or not, to

get care, to hopefully feel better. But far too often they can be

treated without that dignity and those rights.

Advocates have been calling for an independent legal rights advice

service for people detained under the Mental Health Act since the 1990s.

In 2017, the Community Legal Assistance Society called for law reform in

their report Operating in Darkness: B.C.’s Mental Health Act

Detention System .

In 2019, the special rapporteur to the United Nations convention

on the rights of persons with disabilities criticized B.C.’s Mental

Health Act, finding: “Once detained, a person can be forcibly treated

without their free and informed consent, including forced medication and

electroconvulsive therapy.” The special rapporteur said that the

criteria for involuntary treatment was “very broad.”

In 2019, the Ombudsperson found that only 28 percent of

involuntary patient admissions in B.C. followed all required procedures.

They also found that a number of directors admitted and detained people

involuntarily without adequate information and reasons to demonstrate

how the patient met the criteria. They also found that for half of the

patients, no rights advice form was filled out. Before these amendments,

this form was the only way of informing patients of their right to

access legal rights advice. From these numbers, only half of patients

received that information.

These amendments finally follow through on the Attorney General’s

2019 commitment to see this independent rights advice service be put

through. They are critical in building a better, more just system of

mental health care. These amendments are a step forward, and I commend

the Attorney General and the government for this bill.

Up until these amendments pass, people who are involuntarily

detained are not required to receive independent rights advice services.

They are technically supposed to receive notice that they have this

right, but there’s no legal aid service provided free of charge. The

only people who can access legal advice are those who have the

wherewithal to ask for a lawyer. That also means having the means to pay

for one. As we can see from the Ombudsperson’s report, many patients are

never even informed.

These amendments change this legacy by creating the independent

rights advice service and making it available to patients. However,

there are several key pieces to this service that remain

undetermined.

As reported on CBC, this service is only available to those who

request it when it first begins in 2023.

[3:10 p.m.]

As I mentioned earlier, the Mental Health Act is known for being

coercive. We know that in some facilities, patients can be manipulated

into not accessing services, and non-compliance with legislation and

regulations has been shown to be common. In half of involuntary

detentions, patients were not informed of their legal rights. This, as

it stands, is currently a mandatory requirement of the act. How are we

to assume that in this broken system, patients will be able to request

rights advice when they’re frequently not even informed?

Throughout this bill, we see language like a director “must make

reasonable efforts” and a director must give notice “as soon as

reasonably practical.” In a system known for non-compliance, this kind

of watered-down language will allow for people and facilities to

continue to break rules. Without a robust monitoring or disciplinary

process, the flexible language permits facilities to make excuses. I

intend to explore these issues with the Attorney General at committee

stage.

Another issue, and the minister spoke to this in her comments, is

that the service will be provided virtually. She did indicate some

in-person services in certain circumstances will be available, but when

we think about the environment within many facilities around this

province and people not being able to keep their cellphones, I wonder

how the virtual service will be provided.

language, people with disabilities, people with fears of technology or

difficulty using it — how they’re going to be supported and have their

rights met in this kind of scenario.

The other concern around virtual services is that they don’t

provide the kind of connection for patients, and because of that,

patients will be limited in the scope of service that they are getting.

By making the services virtual, the government is, in my mind,

undermining the critical resource right off the bat.

Another issue with the provision of virtual services is equipment.

I’ll be interested to hear about what details will be in place for that.

How will the appointments be resourced, for example? The bill does not

fully explain how the facilities will be providing equipment or how they

expect the facility to pay for that equipment.

Finally, the question is how the government will be financing the

service, generally. On paper, it’s a very positive step, but there needs

to be clarity on how well resourced the service will actually

be.

These amendments are important progress. The government may say

that mental health and mental illness are important, but in year 5 of

their government, they have only made incremental changes in the way

that the province treats those with mental illness.

I’ll just point to some comments that were made in the chamber, I

think last week or a week or two ago in question period, when issues

around crime in community were being raised by the official opposition.

The Attorney General, in several of his answers, spoke about people with

mental health and addictions. At the time, it really struck me that this

is an example of exactly the kind of stigmatization of mental health and

addictions that we have, which we have not yet overcome.

When we hear language like that, when we hear a kind of

generalization linking mental health and addictions to criminal

behaviour, it reinforces that stigma. It reinforces that challenge that

people will have for seeking help when they need it, for being open and

upfront about any struggles they’re having with mental health, because

to this day, in rooms like this, it can still be linked and connected to

criminality.

Mental health care in our province clearly deserves an enormous

amount of attention. It is a growing crisis. Our Mental Health Act is

outdated, and it should be among this government’s top priorities to

update.

[3:15 p.m.]

In the recent report from the all-party Committee on Reforming the

Police Act, one of its recommendations was to strike an all-party

committee for review of the Mental Health Act and to make

recommendations for its modernization, which is clearly long

overdue.

I applaud the changes proposed in this bill, and at the same time,

I push government to see the Mental Health Act in its entirety and

recognize the need for an overhaul and modernization of the

act.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair.

I appreciate hearing from the Third Party and from the official

opposition on this and to hear their support for the bill. It sounds

like we’ll have an interesting committee stage, and I look forward to

that. I appreciate members outlining their intended areas of

questioning. It assists me and staff in being complete in our

answers.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 23, Mental Health Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 24, the Anti-Racism Data Act, second

reading.

BILL 24 — ANTI-RACISM DATA ACT

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

I’m very pleased to have this important piece of legislation read

a second time. For far too long, Indigenous people and racialized

communities have experienced systemic racism when accessing public

services and programs. While we know systemic racism exists, a lack of

demographic data has kept us from fully understanding just how pervasive

and persistent these systemic barriers are, let along addressing them.

The province is committed to advancing racial equity. This legislation

will pave the way to identifying and eliminating systemic racism across

the public sector.

We see the careful and consistent collection of data as a tool to

help identify inequities and to spur action. This legislation is also

about the meaningful collaboration with Indigenous peoples and

racialized communities every step of the way. In that engagement, we

have heard Indigenous peoples and other racialized communities asking

the province to improve the collection and use of demographic data about

ethnic origin, ancestry and race. We also heard the importance of taking

an intersectional approach to identifying and eliminating systemic

racism.

We have heard words of caution about the importance of doing this

work with care, sensitivity and in collaboration. We have heard the need

to do this work in a culturally safe and trauma-informed way and to

deeply consider ways that information can harm communities. These are

harms we must prevent.

This bill was not developed by the province alone. This engagement

has happened with Indigenous partners and community stakeholders in

developing this bill itself. Engagement will continue as the legislation

is implemented over the months and years to come. This bill includes

requirements for ongoing involvement from communities, so that important

tools, instruments and guidelines used to support data collection and

use can be developed together.

Early engagement began last spring, with the Parliamentary

Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives, the member for Surrey–Green

Timbers, holding leader-to-leader engagements. It continued over the

summer and fall, with close to 70 community organizations holding their

own engagements. Public engagement was also held online from September

2021 until January 2022.

Additionally, to align the legislation with the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, Indigenous partners

were consulted and cooperated with, as required in

section 3 of the

Declaration Act.

We also worked with the Human Rights Commissioner on development

of the legislation. The B.C. Human Rights Commissioner’s report

Disaggregated Demographic Data Collection in British Columbia:

The Grandmother Perspec­tive has been foundational to the

development of this legislation. The commissioner’s perspective helped

shape this bill that is before you today.

We also consulted the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who

supports the bill’s provisions that ensure the transparent collection of

data as well as the development of standards to ensure the proper

protection of personal information.

We have heard that Indigenous people and racialized communities

want to be involved in what information is collected about them and how

it is collected, used and shared, which is why we have built this bill

to be enabling. It recognizes that there is a lot more work to do with

Indigenous peoples and racialized communities. This is one step of

many.

On data initiatives related to Indigenous peoples, the legislation

provides pathways for consultation and cooperation. This process is

about the agency and choice of Indigenous people to determine how they

want to engage on data initiatives with the province.

[3:20 p.m.]

It also provides Indigenous people with an opportunity to express

consent or a lack of consent regarding data initiatives. This process

was developed with Indigenous partners, and I’m grateful for their

valuable contributions to this bill.

The intention with this legislation is to do no harm and not to

interfere in Indigenous peoples’ right to data self-governance. We see

this legislation as an important step in getting there. We have heard

from communities that they want to be involved throughout the data life

cycle from collection through to use.

They want to help set priorities for public sector research. To

address this, the legislation provides for the establishment of a

committee to advise and collaborate with the director of statistics, who

is the statutory officer responsible for much of the implementation of

the legislation. The committee will be remunerated for their time and

expertise.

We know that Indigenous people in racialized communities are

concerned that data will be used in a way that is harmful to them, that

it will be used to further stigma­tize and discriminate. The

legislation requires the director of statistics to consider cultural

safety and the potential for community harm at all stages of the work

and to take steps to mitigate and minimize any potential

harm.

You will notice these concepts woven throughout the legislation to

ensure that the real risks of racism, prejudice, stereotyping, bias and

stigmatization that can occur in working with data are identified,

mitigated and prevented. Importantly, the legislation ensures that

disclosure of personal information for the purposes of this legislation

is voluntary, and public bodies must not withhold services from someone

who does not wish to provide their information.

We hear that public bodies do not always think they have a clear

authority to collect personal information to identify and eliminate

systemic racism and promote racial equity. Furthermore, they’re

uncertain how to collect and use that information in a culturally safe

and trauma-informed way.

This legislation establishes a clear purpose to collect personal

information and provides for data standards to be established with

Indigenous people in racialized communities to ensure consistency of

that information. The legislation also enables the creation of data

directives that will set out how data will be collected, used and

disclosed.

It’s important to note that some specifics are not detailed in the

proposed legislation. Instead, the legislation sets the requirement for

collaboration and consultation in developing these details with

Indigenous people in racialized communities. If there is a concern that

the legislation is not being implemented properly in a public body,

there is an ability to appoint an examiner to review the public body’s

program and provide a report back, which will be made public.

If an imminent or ongoing risk of community harm is reported, the

public body can be ordered to take action to mitigate and minimize this

risk. Building trust, transparency and accountability are underlying

themes throughout the legislation.

The director of statistics is required to publish research

priorities for government every two years. Those priorities will be

established with Indigenous people and the committee. Additionally, the

director of statistics is required to release statistics or other

information annually. Every six years an independent person will be

appointed to review the functioning of the legislation. The report will

be made public and tabled in the Legislature.

Finally, the whistleblower provision in the legislation protects

people from reprisal if they report in good faith and with reasonable

belief that the act is being contravened.

I’d like to take this opportunity again to thank the Parliamentary

Secretary for Anti-Racism and the entire team in the public service for

their important work on this bill. I look forward to further discussion

on this important piece of legislation.

T. Wat: It is my honour to take my place in this afternoon’s bill debate,

both in my position as the opposition critic for multiculturalism and as

a proud British Columbian of Chinese heritage.

We are all blessed to live in a province that is built on cultural

diversity. Our diversity is part of our shared identity, one that unites

us as British Columbians. Regardless of who you are, where you were

born, or how you personally identify, if you call B.C. home, you are a

British Columbian and should be entitled to the same freedom, security,

rights, opportunities and levels of acceptance that all British

Columbians are entitled to.

As many of you know, I share a similar story to many in this House

and countless families across our great province. I was born and raised

in Hong Kong and didn’t find my way to B.C. until early adulthood. But I

consider B.C. my home, and I will always consider myself a British

Columbian.

[3:25 p.m.]

Today we as a province are taking another stride toward our shared

vision of creating a more equal, accepting and welcoming B.C. for

all.

While today is cause for celebration, we must all acknowledge the

difficult reality that has led to this legislation. While we have taken

important steps since our province’s founding to better promote and

embrace our multiculturalism and diversity, this idea is not a lived

reality for all British Columbians. Even today, people continue to face

barriers and challenges because of their race, their culture and their

background, whether they are First Peoples, new immigrants to this

country, or have been a member of one of B.C.’s minority communities for

generations.

Every day British Columbians experience incidents of racism

intended to make them feel less valued and less welcome. Over the past

few years, we have come to recognize the many ugly forms racism can take

in our society. Every day British Columbians from cultural minorities

experience incidents of personal racism through insults, threats,

assaults, vandalism and other forms of hate crimes.

The Vancouver police department reported a 700 percent increase in

anti-Asian hate crimes in Vancouver in 2020. According to B’nai Brith

Canada, anti-Semitic inci­dents in B.C. increased to 110 in 2021.

Nationally violent incidents rose from nine to 75, an increase of 700

percent. British Columbians have also become acutely aware of the

systemic racism towards Indigenous people and cultural minorities that

takes place in our education, health care, social services, the justice

system, and countless public and private institutions across our

province.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond’s report In Plain Sight

identifies shocking instances of systemic racism towards Indigenous

people in our health care system. Indigenous people also make up a

disproportionate number of the British Columbians in care and in custody

in our prison system. We cannot forget the shock and devastation our

province and the world felt at the discovery of unmarked graves at the

sites of residential schools across Canada; institutions designed to

strip Indigenous people of their culture, heritage and personal

identity.

The groundbreaking report from the Human Rights Commissioner

The Grandmother Perspective sheds a dark light on the lived

reality of far too many BIPOC communities in B.C., a reality that

includes ongoing socioeconomic and basic human rights challenges. The

personal and systemic racism that continues to exist in B.C. goes

against the very foundation of what our province and our country stand

for. It is the responsibility of every member of this House, and all

British Columbians, to stand up against racism and intolerance in our

province, no matter what form it takes.

This is not an easy journey. It is one that will take years,

decades, and even generations to reconcile our historical wrongs. But

this is a journey that we must all take together, in close consultation

and collaboration with Indigenous leaders and communities as well as all

minority groups. We must have every voice at the table. Every voice must

be heard and valued in our decisions as a province.

[3:30 p.m.]

For years now, there has been a growing call for the province to

bring forward the tools that will help us identify the gaps in our

system and eliminate the systemic racism that still persists in our

public bodies and institutions. Today’s legislation is a milestone in

more ways than one. Not only will it help bring some of these vital

tools to our province, but it is some of the first legislation that has

been created under the principles of UNDRIP, in close consultation with

Indigenous partners and the many voices of our BIPOC

communities.

I’m hoping that this will set the precedent for all future

legislation that will carry on this legacy. We must ensure that the

actions outlined within this bill are carried out with the utmost

respect and consideration of our Indigenous and multicultural

communities and help reduce racial prejudices, eliminate racism and

forward reconciliation in our province through consultation and

cooperation with all those affected.

While we all wholeheartedly support the principles of this

legislation and the actions it lays out, as the official opposition, we

will uphold our duty to ask the crucial questions and raise the concerns

that British Columbians may have over its contents. As outlined by this

government, the legislation tabled before us is intended to serve as a

step to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination faced by

Indigenous, Black and people of colour in B.C.

We must also acknowledge the gravity of the actions we are

undertaking here. Although it is for the purpose of identifying and

eliminating racism and building a better, more inclusive B.C. for

everyone, we must also recognize that this legislation will vastly

expand the scope of data and personal information that government will

have a right to gather, link, store and disclose. Not to mention, we are

talking about race-based data. Although I have no doubt that this data

collection will be used for only the best and most ethical purposes, we

must also recognize the generational trauma associated with the

collection of race-based data.

In our province’s history, similar actions associated with a

person’s race have been conducted to promote, not reduce, racial

prejudices. Asian and South Asian Canadians have not forgotten the

generational trauma that came from the Chinese head tax, the Japanese

internment camps and the Komagata Maru incident — all of which

were provincially sanctioned actions that identified and targeted

British Columbians for their race.

We must ensure that this legislation and the data initiative that

will follow are carried out with the utmost cultural sensitivity for the

communities that will be impacted and involved so we ensure that these

actions bring comfort and hope for the future, not concern over memories

of the past.

[3:35 p.m.]

This initiative will not be undertaken only by the current

administration but by future administrations. The appropriate checks,

balances and regulatory frameworks must be in place to ensure that the

principles and thoroughness of this important work are never

lost.

We also recognize and thank the public bodies and wide array of

B.C. communities that have already been involved in reviewing and

providing input on the checks, balances and framework found in the bill

before us today, including the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner and the thousands of BIPOC leaders and community advocates

who have provided their input.

I think it is important that we also discuss the tone of this

legislation. With the principles of UNDRIP, forwarding reconciliation

and eliminating racism, at its core, this legislation is bringing in

terms and terminology that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been

widely used in legislation and jurisprudence up until this point. There

are terms in this bill that are going to be key tenets of the

initiatives that will come from it. For example, “individuals who are

racialized” is a key term in this bill.

The director of statistics will be required to consult with these

individuals, and the majority of the anti-racism committee will need to

be made up of individuals who are racialized, and so on and so forth.

With terms like this being such crucial elements of the legislation, I

think it is important that we establish the proper

definitions of these

terms if we are to cement them into law. For while the definition may

seem clear and obvious to us in principle, there can be no room for

misinterpretation or misappropriation, regardless of the

situation.

I expect the committee to be represented by individuals from all

racialized communities. But the way this legislation is written out, I

fear that the requirements of the bill could be met without all the

proper voices being present at the table. Similarly, there are examples

that could arise where public bodies meet all the consultation

requirements outlined in this bill and still don’t engage in the

appropriate level of consultation British Columbians expect.

This bill is a milestone, and it is setting a whole new set of

frameworks that have not been, largely, cemented in Canadian legislation

up to this point. We have to be conscious of these things, especially

when we are heading into largely uncharted waters.

While this bill is intended to serve as a crucial stepping stone

on a years-long undertaking by our province to identify and eliminate

racism in our private and public institutions, it is important that we

also recognize the work that has already been undertaken by both private

and public bodies, and individuals as well.

We know the provincial government worked directly with Indigenous

leadership organizations, including the First Nations Leadership

Council, the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and Métis

Nation of British Columbia to ensure that this legislation upholds

Indigenous people’s right to data self-governance. We know that

countless individuals and organizations representing BIPOC communities

have actively engaged with the government and promoted race-based data

collection prior to the tabling of this legislation.

[3:40 p.m.]

We have already cited many of the reports tabled by many public

bodies and private organizations who have already collected and reported

much of the data that has identified racial inequality and gaps in our

current system, so we must raise the important questions. What steps is

the government about to take that it could not prior to the tabling of

this bill? Will additional legislation be tabled to further expand the

scope of government’s data-collecting abilities?

These are all questions we must take into consideration, questions

that our members will undoubtedly press further during committee stage

of this bill.

All of this aside, I would like to conclude by taking a moment to

recognize the years of important work and consultation that went into

this legislation. We would like to thank the minister and his staff as

well as the parliamentary secretary for the work that they have done to

heed British Columbians’ calls for action and take the first steps our

people want to see their government take.

British Columbians come from all cultures, backgrounds and walks

of life, but we all share the same fear, sadness and anger towards the

sentiments of racism that still exist in our province and our country. I

am tired of fearing for the safety and future of my family and friends

because of how they look, where they come from, how they speak or what

their last name is.

I think I speak for everyone here and for all British Columbians

when I say that today is about hope — hope for our future and hope that

we all have a voice at the table and that we can move forward together

to recognize our historical wrongs, heal our generational wounds,

identify and eliminate a systemic racism that still persists and truly

build a better province for all.

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to be able to stand here today and to speak to Bill

24, the Anti-Racism Data Act.

I would like to just reflect for a moment on the comments that

have just been shared with this chamber from our colleague from Richmond

North Centre and, specifi­cally, I think, the comment with respect

to understanding and recognizing the diversity of this province and that

the strength of this province is actually built on that diversity and

the experiences that people have and bring to our society and to our

province.

I think that it’s also important to acknowledge the fear, as the

member clearly identified, that many families have for their children

and for their family members, who have witnessed and felt and

experienced, actually, mistreatment because of who they are and where

they come from and the language they speak and the culture that they

have.

I, too, want to elevate the message from the member for Richmond

North Centre that this bill does reflect hope, hope that with

recognizing systemic racism and that this institution was built to

advantage certain people and to disadvantage others — to recognize that,

to not view it as an existential threat but to understand what that

means — it’s then that we can start to unpack it and start to build this

institution of government to represent all British Columbians, no matter

their background, no matter their language, no matter their

culture.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s with that that I want to raise my hands to the Parliamentary

Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives, who’s sitting right behind me

right now and who I’ve had the honour of spending many, many hours with

on…. I think it’s a number of committees. We’ve spent many hours on

committee with each other.

There should be no question to the level of importance that the

parliamentary secretary puts to the collection of disaggregated data and

the role that racism plays in our society and being a true warrior in

combatting racism. When committee work gets distracted by the other

things, we can always count on the parliamentary secretary to bring us

back to the points that need to be reminded often — that not everybody

sees the world this way and not everybody has that experience. Here,

there is an opportunity to reflect on the diversity.

Just very few brief comments about the quality of the

consultation. I think every minister wants to stand up and say that the

bill they’re tabling before the House has undergone the most extensive

consultation. We hear ministers build up the amount of consultation that

happens.

If you take a look at the notes that I’ve been given and take a

look at the quality and the depth of the consultation on this, I want to

just say that I think this is truly a model on how community engagement

can inform legislation and how important it is that the government

reflects and the legislation reflects the wishes and the wants of the

community.

When you have over 70 community-based conversations and dialogues

that are happening, 10,000 people participating in those dialogues,

surveys with nearly 3,000 respondents, 1,300 suggestions and two

gatherings with 100 Métis people participating, it highlights that this

bill is starting in a good place here, at first and second reading.

We’re in a good place, because it has been informed.

As I look through the bill, I would say that there’s only one

section, which I’ll highlight in a few minutes, that troubles me. It’s

not specific to this bill. It’s how the government in general handles

certain aspects of the relationship with Indigenous people. So other

than that, I’m quite happy to be very supportive of this legislation. I

wouldn’t actually say “other than that.” I just want to make a note that

I think there are some things that need to change.

Co-developing this legislation, as has been pointed out, is an

important commitment that’s been made under the Declaration Act, to be

working more collaboratively with Indigenous people. But this was not

just Indigenous people that were collaborated with. It’s all the BIPOC

community that has been engaging in this.

This legislation stipulates the support for cultural safety and

consideration of community harm. It’s legislation that expressly states,

over and over again, that the goal is to identify and eliminate systemic

racism and advance racial equity. As I said, this legislation should be

held up as a successful, deeply engaged, deeply informed piece of work

that should be celebrated for that.

In some ways, I see this as intersectionality in action. It’s not

just going to add diversity and stir. It retains the aspect of

power-sharing in the process of drafting the legislation, spreading it

out and letting people inform the legislation that’s going to govern

them and their data.

I hope to see this process of including advocacy groups and First

Nations from the outset, taking their feedback seriously and

co-developing rather than checking off the consultation box, which we’ve

seen so often here historically. This legislation provides another way

of doing things.

[3:50 p.m.]

I recognize that not all legislation can or will benefit from such

deep and thorough consultation or engagement. Sometimes government needs

to move much quicker than that. I understand that legislation is

developed in a variety of different ways. However, I think that the pace

of government is sufficiently moderate enough that we could do much more

and a much deeper engagement.

I think one of the challenges that we’ve seen in our society is

that the engagement pieces have become more of a box-ticking exercise

and more separation of people to be able to answer individual questions,

less community gatherings so the community can hear what is being said

and engage with each other and debate with each other about various

aspects of it.

Hopefully, as we begin to open up from the last few years of the

pandemic, we start to recognize that there’s real strength in getting

people together and listening. Having the community be able to engage

with each other, as well, is really important. It helps inform

government in the development of the legislation.

When legislation is written without the consultation, then I think

what we see is that it kind of ends up in here, or even before it gets

to this stage, lagging down and slowing down because the members of the

opposition have to ask those questions that may not have been answered

in the engagement and the consultation process. So having that work done

at the forefront, having the event like we had earlier this week, where

community leaders can come here and say, “Yeah, we can endorse this

work; we can get behind this work,” is an important and powerful message

that’s sent.

As Dr. June Francis said on Monday…. The announ­cement that

was made on Monday is not a one-and-done situation. In order for this

legislation to be successful, there needs to be the resources there to

back it up. In fact, we know, as I said earlier, that systemic racism,

institutionalized racism is all through this institution of government.

The initiative established by this legislation must be properly funded

and supported in order for it to be successful.

The legislation before us today sets out that public bodies may

collect personal information for the purpose of identifying and

eliminating systemic racism and advancing racial equity. It provides

parameters for how this information should be collected, and it

clarifies that the choice to disclose or not disclose information will

never impact on the delivery of a benefit or of a service provided by

this institution.

In other words, if you choose to not provide your personal

information, your race, to a health care provider, you’ll not be denied

health care services as an example. It also highlights that the

information can only be used for the express intent of identifying and

eliminating systemic racism and advancing racial equity.

In developing a proposed data standard — a standard by which the

information must be collected, stored and safeguarded — clause 9

establishes that “the director must support the culturally safe

collection, use and disclosure of personal information.” This is

important. It builds in protections. It acknowledges that there are

cultural differences around how personal information is

stored.

I’ll just say that as I was reading through the various responses

from Indigenous, Black and people of colour, the BIPOC community…. There

is a hesitation that needs to be acknowledged in this from members of

those communities.

I think about this from the experience of my family, a Coast

Salish family from the W̱SÁNEĆ

territory. Oftentimes, the data that was collected about us wasn’t used

to help us. It was used for the opposite purposes of that. It was used

to marginalize and to harm, in some cases, our family

members.

[3:55 p.m.]

The collaborative spirit of this needed to be there from the

outset. There is a great deal of concern that is legitimate from members

of the community who have not experienced, I would say, the best side of

what data could be — helping improve services — but have seen how data

can be used against people.

Also important, as is said here, the report explains that — and

this is the First Nations Engagement Report: “Data has been used against

Indigenous peoples to depict them as disorganized and

inferior.”

What that does is highlight the fact that data and the information

can be used to paint a picture to the benefit of whoever it is that has

that data. So it’s very important that we are careful with it and that

we make sure that what we are doing here is building more confidence and

trust and being more open and transparent as we possibly can.

The point that I want to raise here about

section 6 is the point

that I’ve raised in previous legislation. It’s a point that I raised in

the Forest Amendment Act of last fall — the 30-day notification. Now, I

understand that the provincial government needs to notify Indigenous

nations that they’re doing something. So you have to provide a

notification. However, the 30-day notification process is problematic

because, as we experience in First Nations communi­ties across the

province, it sometimes it takes longer than 30 days to process the

letters and the requests.

When an Indigenous nation of any size is receiving these

notifications from a provincial government of this size, of this

density, the number of agencies and ministries all seeking…. Not only

that, but the number of civil society groups that now have embraced

reconciliation and said: “We want to do that too. We want to be a part

of that as well.”

My office has become kind of this collection zone of civil society

groups that want to know how to engage the local Indigenous nations.

Everybody wants to do it. Everybody wants to ask a question. “How do you

pronounce this?” or “How do you show honour and respect to the territory

that we’re in?”

Indigenous nations are being flooded with these requests. Some of

them are fairly frivolous or, you know, just local relationship-building

exercises that require resources to be able to accommodate. In the same

token, I get groups coming back to me and saying: “We want to do a

territorial acknowledgement. We reached out, and we never heard

anything. They must not care.”

I say: “Well, don’t assume that they don’t care. Just assume that

your request was one of hundreds, maybe several hundred requests that

they’re trying to negotiate through and putting those requests on a

hierarchy.” How to do a territorial welcome might not be as high up on

the list of the hierarchy as the burial cairns that have been disrupted

or the property development that is happening next to the

res.

There is this recognition that the 30-day notification process….

Again, we often use the language of capacity in here. I hear so often:

“Well, the First Nation doesn’t have the capacity to do this.” I think

that in many cases, there is the capacity. There are just not the

resources to be able to be able to deliver on the dozens and dozens,

hundreds and hundreds of requests that come in.

When you put a 30-day time stamp on this, a clock starts as soon

as the letter has been sent in the mail. You’ve got four or five days

that Canada Post uses to delivers that. You’re now down to 26 to 24

days. Time’s ticking. There’s maybe a lack of understanding as to

whether or not weekends are involved in that. Maybe you burn another

eight days in that.

You realize that actually, a 30-day notification time is really

hardly any time at all for an administrative body to administer

anything. So this 30-day notification process is something that I think

unfairly puts a time limit.

[4:00 p.m.]

If we are to truly be engaging in self-determination, then I think

that we need to, as a governing body, look at that 30-day notification

process and be honest that it’s probably putting an unfair amount of

pressure, an undue amount of pressure on an Indigenous governing

entity.

With that, I think I’ve probably said enough on it. I raised

significant concerns about it back last fall under the Forest Act

amendments.

One final piece I’ll add to this is that when we craft legislation

that puts in place the requirement to do this engagement, the

requirement to do the notification and the consultation and then, at the

end of it, we’re not recognizing the fact that the Declaration Act

agrees and affirms free, prior and informed consent…. Not just free,

prior and informed but, also, there’s a consent piece to this. When we

give the ability for the Crown to ignore that consent has not been

given, then we are not actually embracing free, prior and informed

consent. We’re only embracing free, prior and informed. That’s not

what’s in the Declaration Act.

That’s a stumbling block for me. As long as the government, any

government, continues to use and to frame sections around this in the

legislation, I’ll continue to stand up and raise questions about it. I’m

certain that Indigenous leaders will be raising their level of concern,

whatever that might be. It might be different than mine, but that is

certainly something that catches my attention every time I see

it.

Combatting systemic racism is commendable and necessary in our

society. We have a society… Actually, in B.C., we have racism and

colonialism that are intertwined in a unique, very special way here. I

don’t use “special” in…. Where the colonial language or the aspects of

the colonial government continue to exist, I’ll continue to raise

it.

Overall, it’s been critical that we are collecting data and

understanding the picture and what we’re looking at and the challenges

that we face as a society. It’s really important that we collect this

data to help better inform our public policy and to ensure that it’s

both as nuanced as it needs to be and equitable.

I’m grateful to the parliamentary secretary. I’m grateful to the

minister, the Attorney General. I’m grateful to all of the people who

took time to participate in this so that we can actually stand in this

Legislature today and say, with some level of certainty, that there has

been a good amount of consultation don