Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 34

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Bill Radbourne

Hon. J. Darcy

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

VisionQuest and residential addiction treatment services

L. Throness

Sutherland Secondary School

B. Ma

Kin’s Farm Market

T. Wat

Tom Harris

L. Krog

Arthritis

L. Reid

Living Room Art event in Burnaby Heights

J. Routledge

Oral Questions

Review of ride-sharing and taxi industries

R. Coleman

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Sturdy

Hon. C. Trevena

Protection of wild salmon and status of fish farms

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Horgan

Review of ride-sharing and taxi industries

J. Isaacs

Hon. C. Trevena

Assistance for victims of Tappen landslide

G. Kyllo

Hon. M. Farnworth

B.C. NDP government transition team and Premier’s office

staffing

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Redies

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations

and Rural Development (continued)

J. Rustad

D. Barnett

Hon. D. Donaldson

S. Bond

S. Thomson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions (continued)

Hon. J. Darcy

J. Thornthwaite

L. Throness

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2017

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Tributes

BILL RADBOURNE

Hon. J. Darcy: I rise with great sadness today to share the news of the passing

of a good friend and great community leader from New Westminster, whose

name was Bill Radbourne and who passed away yesterday. He served with

the New West fire department for 33 years, retiring as assistant

chief.

An incredibly active member of our community, most recently

training service dogs. Everywhere he was seen, including in visits to

the Legislature, he had a service dog with him. President of his

residents association. Active in the ancient, honourable Hyack Anvil

Battery, a long-standing tradition in New Westminster. Head of the Hyack

Festival Association. He was named Citizen of the Year a number of years

ago. Most recently he was a big support to his wife, Lynn, in developing

the youth ambassador program from New Westminster. Members may recall

them visiting this House as part of their learning about civic

engagement.

I had a very precious opportunity to visit him in the hospital, at

Royal Columbian Hospital, on Sunday before he passed away on Monday. I

would like to ask members of this House to join me in extending to his

wife, Lynn, the love of his life, our deepest condolences — to Lynn, his

family and a community that will miss him dearly.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a group of hard-working members of

Advocis. We’re joined by Peter Tzanetakis, Andrew Kimber, Greg Pollock, Brad

Brain, Mike Reilly, Steve Hammer, David Webb, Jared Webb and Rob Bauml.

Advocis is the oldest and largest volunteer professional membership

association of financial planners and advisers in Canada, with more than

12,000 members and 40 chapters advocating for professionalism and consumer

protection. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Isaacs: I’d like to welcome to the House Daniel Fontaine, who’s the CEO of the

B.C. Care Providers Association, and his colleague Mike Klassen,

vice-president of communications and stakeholder relations. The B.C. Care

Providers Association is celebrating its 40th anniversary today. It

represents residential care, assisted-living and home care providers across

the province. They are here to meet with representatives from all three

caucuses to discuss how we can strengthen seniors care here in the province,

something I know that they work tirelessly to advocate for.

Will everyone in the House please join me in congratulating them on

their 40th anniversary and welcome our guests today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017.

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

now.

I'm pleased to introduce the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor

Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017. This bill is a collection of minor

corrections and technical housekeeping amendments to various statutes.

As part of the statute revision process, the office of legislative

counsel routinely identifies and brings forward these types of

corrections. The minor corrections in this bill are part of the routine

process to ensure that B.C. statutes are orderly and correct.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act,

2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[10:10 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VISIONQUEST AND RESIDENTIAL

ADDICTION TREATMENT

SERVICES

L. Throness: This summer I attended the 20th anniversary celebration of

VisionQuest in the Chilliwack River Valley. For two decades, VisionQuest

staff and volunteers have offered long-term residential treatment to

prolific offenders addicted to drugs and alcohol — men sent there,

instead of to prison, by the courts. VQ is registered with the assisted

living registry under the Ministry of Health, receiving a stipend of

just under $31 per day, per client, to feed, house, pay staff and offer

programming to 40 men at a time, men who would otherwise be wreaking

havoc on Fraser Valley streets. VisionQuest struggles heroically to

offer a significant public benefit at rock-bottom costs. In fact, it can

barely afford to keep going.

There are 100 similar organizations on the assisted living

registry. These non-profit societies operate on a shoestring, and they

represent a golden opportunity to expand addictions treatment quickly,

at minimal cost. To grow available spaces, the Minister of Health simply

needs to provide more daily funding and help to create a professional

association that will share best practices, set standards, conduct

inspections and push out bad actors.

So far, the government has made positive noises about addictions

treatment, but little tangible has been delivered. Perhaps this is

because long-term residential treatment is very expensive, if we rely

only on high-priced professionals already in short supply. But we

already have a treatment system aided by hundreds of volunteers ready to

give heart and soul to the betterment of their fellow British

Columbians. Many more NGOs would come on board if they were invited,

regulated and supported.

I call today upon the government to unleash the power of the

non-profit sector by making better use of the assisted living registry

to get thousands of addicted and often homeless people off the streets,

off drugs and into long-term residential treatment, like that provided

by VisionQuest in the Chilliwack River Valley.

SUTHERLAND SECONDARY SCHOOL

B. Ma: I had the privilege of visiting Sutherland Secondary School in

North Vancouver last week, home of the Sabers. I met with

administrators, staff and, best of all, approximately 90 grades 10, 11

and 12 students. According to the department head, I was the first MLA

to come to talk to their students in at least 12 years. Another staff

member insisted that I may have been the first MLA to visit their school

in up to 25 years.

While it might have been new to them, the students asked questions

like pros. In fact, I find the younger a person is, the harder the

questions they ask. Kids really know how to make an MLA sweat. For

nearly an hour, I was grilled on everything from housing affordability

to the five-cent transit fare increase. These young people wanted to

know that we were committed to fighting climate change and investing in

harm reduction strategies when it came to drug addiction. They wanted us

to work with teachers to ensure good-quality education for the future.

They wanted to understand our commitment to a $15-an-hour minimum wage,

and they wanted to know what politics was like in Canada.

It may have been my first visit to Sutherland, but I certainly do

not intend for it to be my last. It is at our public schools that I am

most struck by these words that Lebanese poet Kahlil Gibran wrote about

children: “You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they

have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls,

for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit,

not even in your dreams…. You are the bows from which your children as

living arrows are sent forth…upon the path of the infinite.”

Let us all be strong and sturdy bows, my colleagues, and may

Sutherland students go swift and far.

KIN’S FARM MARKET

T. Wat: October is Small Business Month, a great time for us to reflect on

a wonderful business that contributes so much to B.C.’s economy. I

recently got the opportunity, in the city of Richmond, to help celebrate

a business that started out small but has now successfully expanded

throughout B.C., thanks to the hard work of the Kin family.

While Kin’s Farm Market started as an eight-foot-long produce

table at Granville Island in 1982, its first bricks-and-mortar location

was opened at Blundell Centre in Richmond in 1987. This is where the Kin

family was able to provide a much larger variety of produce and services

to customers and where the Kin’s Farm Market name started to reach the

public. From that location in Richmond, they began to establish

relationships with various farmers and suppliers so that they could

offer consumers the highest-quality goods. Their Ladner store was opened

in 1990 and became their new distribution centre. Two years later the

store expanded into an enclosed mall.

[10:15 a.m.]

In 1996, Kin’s head office was established in Richmond to

accommodate the needs of the growing business. In 2000, Kin’s expanded

to the Fraser Valley, and in 2004, it entered downtown Vancouver. In

2005, it launched its franchise program, and today Kin’s Farm Market

boasts 29 corporate and franchise locations throughout British

Columbia.

Congratulations to the Kin family on their 30th anniversary of

doing business, and thank you for choosing Richmond to be the launching

point for a very successful franchise.

TOM HARRIS

L. Krog: On July 22, close to 1,500 people gathered in Nanaimo’s conference

centre to honour the life of Tom Harris. He was an incredibly successful

businessman, but more importantly, he was a true community leader. To

mourn his unexpected death at only 67, he leaves behind his mother,

Evelyn; his wife, Christine; five children; and 12

grandchildren.

Everyone knew Tom Harris, and everyone respected Tom Harris. No

one on Vancouver Island can help but smile and repeat the jingle: “If

you’re looking for a car, go see Tom.” Amongst a multitude of positions

he held, he was Telus’s largest dealer, past president of the New Car

Dealers Association, past chair of the Nanaimo Hospital Foundation and

United Way campaign chair. So many positions and so many charities he

supported.

Unlike the infamous Robert Dunsmuir, whose business success in

Nanaimo was marred by greed and horrible treatment of his workers, Tom’s

amazing success was crowned by his outstanding generosity, especially in

tough times when the community needed it most, and by the love his

employees had for him. There was hardly a charity in Nanaimo that didn’t

receive donations from Tom or his companies, including St. Paul’s

Anglican Church.

Corporate Citizen of the Year. Appointed to the Order of St. John.

His last recognition was a Lifetime Achievement Award from the New Car

Dealers Association of B.C. in 2015.

Notwithstanding all his community work, he was a loving and

devoted father to his family and husband to his wife. He loved people,

and in turn, people loved him. His work and his life brought honour to

his family and to his name in a life that was truly well lived. It was a

life lived in the service of his community, his employees and his

family.

ARTHRITIS

L. Reid: I rise today to talk about the impact of arthritis on British

Columbians. There are over 100 kinds of arthritis, including gout, lupus

and scleroderma, in addition to the more commonly recognized forms like

osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis in its various forms

is one of the major health challenges facing British Columbians and our

health care system. More than 650,000 British Columbians live with this

disease, including children, and there is no cure.

When one considers all their friends and family members, virtually

every one of us is touched by arthritis in some manner. Arthritis

doesn’t just affect individuals, families and our health system. It has

a major impact on our economy as well. Arthritis does not just affect

seniors. It impacts many people in the workforce. In fact, more than

half, 52 percent, of British Columbians living with arthritis are

between the ages of 15 and 65. Of those British Columbians of working

age, more than one in four report they are not in the labour force

because of a disability associated with their disease.

Arthritis can impact people’s abilities to participate in the

workforce in other ways. It may require them to change their jobs or

reduce their working hours, all of which can negatively impact their

careers, their financial situation, their families and their economic

contributions.

I want to say a special thanks to the researchers, to the

caregivers and to the patients in British Columbia who continue to

strive for a cure.

LIVING ROOM ART

EVENT IN BURNABY

HEIGHTS

J. Routledge: Last month I had the pleasure of attending an art exhibit in my

community. It’s called Living Room Art in the Heights, and it’s held in

a home in my neighbourhood. That’s right. One evening every year someone

turns their house into an art gallery. Every room showcases a different

local artist and a different artistic medium. Fabric art in the family

room, ceramic art in the dining room, storytelling and live music in the

living room. On every wall, beautiful watercolours, acrylics and

photography. Isn’t it inspiring that this family opened their home to

hundreds of strangers to share and experience art? And it’s not the

first time.

[10:20 a.m.]

Living Room Art has been hosted in a different home every year

since 2014. It was started by local artists — in particular, Yunuen

Perez Vertti. In this age, when so many people are cutting themselves

off from their neighbours in gated communities, on locked-off floors in

their highrises and behind video surveillance on their front porches,

Living Room Art shows such a faith in humanity and in the unifying power

of human creativity.

Let me conclude by thanking the artists and the residents of

Burnaby Heights who come together to bring art into the heart of our

community and, by doing so, foster a love of art among a diverse

population, many of whom may not ordinarily go to museums and art

galleries. But it also fosters something else that’s just as important.

It contributes a sense of mutual trust and connectedness that, in turn,

makes all of us safer in our communities.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING

AND TAXI

INDUSTRIES

R. Coleman: This is a government of broken promises, of delays, reviews,

dragging their feet. It’s a government, actually, in

gridlock.

Yesterday another promise broken, another delay, another review,

having a minister that didn’t even read the report in Vancouver prior to

actually hiring somebody to write a report with regards to ride-share —

another review so that this Premier doesn’t have to make a decision. I

think he’s afraid.

The Premier has broken his promises on ride-sharing, he’s broken

his promise on taxpayer-funded political parties, and many more. How can

British Columbians trust a Premier who breaks promise after promise

after promise, just so he can cling to power?

It’s a government in neutral….

Interjections.

R. Coleman: They don’t like to hear this. It’s a government in neutral that’s

failing to make a decision.

I want to ask the Premier again: why, one more time, did you break

another promise yesterday?

Hon. J. Horgan: Another one of those wild moments from the new

opposition.

I want to thank the member for his question, and I want to remind

him that the people who are sitting on that side of the House knew for

five years that ride-sharing was coming to British Columbia, and for

five years they kept booting the ball down the field until just before

the election. Just before the election, they said: “Look, we’ve got a

solution.” And the solution led to more of us on this side of the House

than them on that side of the House.

I make no apologies to the now Leader of the

Opposition…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …for wanting to get ride-sharing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Horgan: I make no apologies to the hon. member on the other side for

wanting to get it right rather than wanting to get it done for political

reasons, which is why you had a bogus consultation in March that led to

a blank slate for us to fill in.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: I actually have friends who drive taxis that I know very well, and

they’re concerned about the certainty about their job. They want to know

there’s a level playing field for insurance and licensing and criminal

record checks and those things — all those things we promised to do when

we ran in the last provincial election.

We also didn’t make the promise that we’d have it in place by the

end of 2017. You said you would. Now you’ve changed your mind. You go

hide behind the review, saying: “Well, I didn’t really mean what I said

when I ran. I really haven’t meant anything of what I said as a leader

of the NDP party during an election, because I keep shutting it down. I

keep delaying, obfuscating and breaking my promises.” That’s what the

Premier is doing. I think he is afraid of making a decision. He’s afraid

to make the tough decisions — only the easy ones.

So why, just tell me why. Why, other than the fact you want to

hide from actually making a decision, are you once more just doing a

review to delay, delay, delay actually making a decision as the Premier

of the province of British Columbia?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s interesting, again, hearing the now Leader of the Opposition

— and I do relish saying that — talk about changing narratives after an

election campaign.

I want to quote from a speech that was read in this House when

that side of the House was in government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: This is what the throne speech said. These were the words of those

on that side of the House. “While all parties in this Legislature

publicly stated their support for ride-sharing in the recent election,

your government” — that being those guys — “has heard the message that

legitimate implementation concerns remain. Any proposed legislation will

be referred to an all-party committee for extensive consultation” and

public stakeholder relationships.

When we came to government in the middle of the summer, we were

committed to bringing in ride-sharing, on the assumption that they had

done something in five years. As it turned out, they hadn’t.

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

supplemental.

R. Coleman: Now the tact is: “I’m going to go into a corner and whine about

the fact somebody said something different about something because I

don’t want to admit that I’m breaking a promise.”

This is your province, Mr. Premier. You’re the one in charge

today. You’re the one that made the commitment to the province of

British Columbia. You want to go hide around somebody else’s words? That

just shows one more piece of lack of leadership for you, in your

position, to not be able to make a decision.

When are you going to stop breaking promises to the people of

British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I know that there’s not unanimity on that side of the House.

I know that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson had great difficulty

with this file because he did nothing with it for 2½ years.

I’m delighted to hear that the Leader of the Official Opposition

has a friend who drives a taxi. But I’m more encouraged by the

thoughtfulness of the member for Vancouver-Langara, who as recently as

two days ago, said the following: “Our party rushed too quickly to

welcome Uber to British Columbia. We need to develop a road map to get

this improved service for customers and maintain passenger safety,

treats everyone fairly and creates a level playing field.”

Hon. Speaker, through you to the gentleman with a friend on the

other side: I’ll take advice from him once they get their act

together.

J. Sturdy: As we know, yesterday it was confirmed that the NDP were going to

do yet another review before even considering ride-sharing for British

Columbians — more delay, more taxpayer dollars.

The terms of reference for Mr. Hara’s ride-sharing report are

specific: you must consult with taxi associations, municipalities, First

Nations, the airport operators, and the list does go on. What is

glaring, however, is the exclusion of some important groups: the public,

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and — oh, incredibly — the ride-sharing

industry itself. Evidently, these groups have nothing to add.

My question of the Minister of Transportation, and I believe it to

be a reasonable question: how can government possibly devise a strategy

to bring ride-sharing to British Columbia without consulting the very

companies that have experience providing these services around the

world?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: That side of the House, in government, had five years to deal with

ride-share — to talk to the companies, to talk to taxis and come up with

a solution. What we have instead was a plan just before the last

election which the taxi industry said would devastate it. It would be

destructive. What we want to be is constructive….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.

It’s impossible to hear the Minister’s response.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. C. Trevena: We want to be constructive and come up with a solution that works

for B.C., for the very complex situation that we have in B.C. that

includes everyone and deals with a problem that people know we

have.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a second

supplemental.

J. Sturdy: You would consider that any credible review would encompass all

interests. To act otherwise, one must consider some ulterior

motives.

The minister’s own mandate letter says she’s to work with taxi

drivers, taxi companies and ride-sharing companies. The minister has had

years and years of experience as the Transportation critic, and the

government has had ample opportunity to come up with a plan, yet they

drag their feet and dither and delay. Yes, it’s true. Few believe the

minister or the Premier. It is difficult to trust this government when

there is yet another very clear, very concise campaign promise

broken.

My question to the minister: is the outcome of this expensive

delay review already a foregone conclusion?

Hon. C. Trevena: The foregone conclusion is that we want to hear what Dr. Hara has

to say on the taxi industry, that we are going to hear….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, opposition members don’t want to hear what I have to

say, but we are going to hear….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. C. Trevena: We’re going to see what comes from the review. We are going to be

talking to the ride-share companies, and we’re going to be talking to

others to make sure that we get the best solution for British Columbia —

not a short-term situation that that government tried to do just before

the last election, which was politically motivated. We want to get

public policy in place first.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I hope I don’t have to say this again. It is

outrageously rude to be talking when somebody is standing and

speaking.

PROTECTION OF WILD SALMON

AND STATUS OF FISH

FARMS

S. Furstenau: Wild salmon are tremendously important to coastal and northern

communities. As the mayor of Smithers states: “It’s a wild salmon

economy here.” The Skeena River alone generates up to $110 million per

year, while sports fishing in B.C. produced revenues of $925 million,

contributing $325 million to B.C.’s GDP and 8,400 direct

jobs.

In a 2013 article, the MLA from Stikine Valley, now the Minister

of Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development, was quoted, saying: “Wild salmon habitat deserves local,

regional, provincial, national and global protection, because there is

nothing like it remaining in the world.”

My question is to the Premier. Saving B.C.’s wild salmon will

require a massive investment in habitat restoration. Is your government

prepared to make this investment, particularly given the crucial role

that wild salmon plays in B.C.’s economy?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. We had some questions

yesterday around salmon in British Columbia, and I’m delighted to focus

on wild salmon, wild Pacific salmon, which are the lifeblood of many

communities, as the member said.

[10:35 a.m.]

In my own community of Langford–Juan de Fuca, fishing in Sooke and

Port Renfrew is the vital part of the economy that we see, certainly

during the summer. I had the good fortune of being on the San Juan River

with the Pacheedaht First Nation to observe their food fishery not seven

days ago. The power of salmon is in all of us, and I think that every

member of this House would agree.

With respect to the question about salmon restoration, certainly,

upstream is the responsibility of the provincial government. We need to

make sure that we are rehabilitating streams after logging practices —

some good, some bad. But we also have to make sure we’re working with

partners.

The member for Skeena raised some questions yesterday with respect

to Indigenous people and what their relationship is with salmon. We need

to make sure the federal government is at the table with dollars, to

make sure they’re meeting their obligations as well.

I’d also say that I think all members, if you’re not aware of the

important salmon enhancement work that’s being done up and down the

coast to bring more salmon into play not just for food fishery, not just

for commercial and sport fisheries but for orcas and other mammals that

depend on the salmon…. I think that we can all do well, when the

estimates for the member for Stikine and the minister responsible for

Agriculture come up, to embrace and support the notion of salmon

enhancement and making sure that we’re doing restoration in our

streambeds.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: In 2009, the Fraser River sockeye return was so low, it was

regarded as a catastrophic collapse. The Cohen Commission of Inquiry

into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River was launched, and

three years later it produced 75 recommendations on how we could restore

and protect wild salmon. At the time, Justice Cohen stated: “Salmon

farms should not be permitted to operate unless it is clear they pose no

more than a minimal risk to the Fraser River sockeye salmon.”

This year the Fraser River sockeye are returning at nearly the

same catastrophically low levels as in 2009. We are in an

emergency.

My question is to the Premier. I appreciate you recognizing the

need to work with the federal government. Will the Premier meet with

Prime Minister Trudeau to actively advocate for B.C.’s wild salmon and

establish a coordinated provincial-federal strategy to responsibly phase

out open-net fish farms on migratory routes?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member again for her question.

The Minister of Agriculture met with the Minister of Fisheries

just last week to raise the issues of open-net-pen fish farms on

migratory routes, which is counter to the recommendations of Cohen.

Cohen has been endorsed, I believe, by the members on the other side as

well as the current federal government and the government of the day

here in British Columbia. It’s my view that we need to make sure that

we’re working with all of the stakeholders, as articulated by the member

for Skeena yesterday.

This issue didn’t arrive yesterday. The member has given us a

historical note back to 2009 and the beginning of the Cohen

investigation. But we’ve had challenges with wild fish and the

integration with Atlantics — invasive species, in the minds of some —

for some 25, 30 years.

This issue will not solved be overnight. But I commit to this

member and all members of this House and all British Columbians that

wild salmon are paramount on this side and, I believe, throughout this

Legislature. I’m going to do my level best to work with every level of

government and all Indigenous people to protect wild salmon.

REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING

AND TAXI

INDUSTRIES

J. Isaacs: The Minister of Transportation announced yesterday that instead of

keeping her promise, she hired an expensive consultant to do the work.

How expensive? It was $165,000. Interestingly, that same consultant has

already done a report on this very issue. And guess who did that report?

The city of Vancouver and the then lead councillor on the issue, Geoff

Meggs, who has since become the Premier’s chief of staff.

That begs the question: did she order the review, or was she

directed by the Premier’s office because they knew what the answer

was?

Hon. C. Trevena: I asked for the review.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

[10:40 a.m.]

J. Isaacs: Well, I’m having a hard time understanding, if the government was

already familiar with the consultant’s report, why did they not simply

take that report and all the other reviews that have been done and make

some decisions. Or if that wasn’t the case, if they thought the original

report was flawed, why hire the same consultant for a second round? The

minister has admitted that she didn’t even read the consultant’s report,

which was only 32 pages.

To the minister: is this incompetence, or is this report simply an

expensive way to delay further and avoid any accountability?

Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member opposite may be geographically challenged. The

review that was done previously was done for Vancouver. I’m the Minister

of Transportation for the whole province of British Columbia, not the

city of Vancouver. The work that will be done will be done in the

interest of the people of British Columbia.

ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF

TAPPEN

LANDSLIDE

G. Kyllo: One of the proudest moments of my life was bringing my newborn

daughter home for the very first time. Now, my constituents Ian and

Rachel Sudbury were also looking forward to bringing their first child

to their new home. Their baby, Sloane, was just born two weeks ago, but

unfortunately, their house was destroyed in a debris flow earlier this

May.

It is now October, and disaster financial assistance will not pay

the money that everyone agrees they are owed. I spoke to the Minister of

Forests four weeks ago about this case. He said he was on it. Nothing

has happened. So I raised the situation here in this House two weeks

ago. Still, the Sudburys have not received a penny of support from this

government. This is beyond ridiculous.

My question to the minister is very simple: when will Rachel and

Ian get the support they are owed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the hon. member that the issue is being worked on

expeditiously by emergency management British Columbia, by the

government, to address the issues in this very, very heart-wrenching

situation. I can give the member specific details, particularly around

the work that needed to be done before any decision in terms of how to

proceed forward has taken place.

On September 27, the geotechnical report was received by the

Sudbury family and the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and forwarded

to DFA. That report was required by the Columbia-Shuswap regional

district before any further action could take place. The estimator for

the DFA contacted the Sudbury family on September 30, after receipt of

the geotechnical report. The engineer’s final inspection of the home and

property was completed on October 12 of this year to ensure that

emergency management B.C. has a full understanding of the damages caused

by the event. The field evaluator’s report is expected to be delivered

to EMBC on Monday, which it has been. EMBC will review the field

evaluator’s report upon receipt and will contact the Sudbury family to

discuss the next steps.

They are working on this as expeditiously as they can to ensure

that the Sudbury’s situation is dealt with.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.

G. Kyllo: Well, this is cold comfort to the Sudburys. They’ve been out of

their home for over five months. They’re continuing to make mortgage

payments on a house that has been destroyed. They have not received a

penny from this government. This government has known for months now

that they have not been paid. They need financial assistance.

What the member mentioned as far as the engineer, this only

happened on Friday. For over a month now, the minister has been aware of

this issue. There is no requirement, to my understanding, that the

actual Westrek report was required for any of this further work to be

undertaken.

[10:45 a.m.]

There’s no question that the Sudburys are due the funding. Whether

the house is deemed to be inhabitable or whether they can have the order

to actually rebuild makes no difference. The disaster that has actually

affected their home is more than the maximum value that’s payable under

the DFA.

I do not see and do not understand why this government continues

to delay. Please, will the minister commit to going to his office and

ensuring that DFA issue the cheque to the Sudburys so that they can move

on with their life?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raised this question in the House. We assured him at

that time that we would get on to the issue to find out what delay has

been taking place. I have just enumerated the actions that have been

taking place and how quickly they’ve been taking place, including the

dates of when that’s happened. The ministry will be in touch with the

family. They are working diligently, doing the due process that needs to

take place, in order to bring a resolution to this very tragic

situation.

I’d also like to remind the member, when he is saying how long it

has taken, of Johnsons Landing, where it took that government more than

five years to finally address the water situation in that community,

which suffered a similar situation to this tragic case.

B.C. NDP GOVERNMENT TRANSITION

TEAM AND PREMIER’S

OFFICE STAFFING

S. Bond: Recently British Columbians learned that the NDP-Green coalition

needed a secretariat to manage their relationship rather than relying on

their, I’m sure most of us would agree, competent House Leader, as has

been the practice in the past. The price tag to manage a purely

political relationship: almost $1 million over four years.

Today we discovered that not only are they using taxpayer dollars

to manage political relationships; they also apparently needed some

pretty expensive help to manage their transition to government. There’s

a long list of lucrative contracts handed out by the Premier to his

longtime NDP friends and supporters to work “as a member of a transition

team appointed by the Premier-designate,” and it goes on to name the

Premier.

To the Premier: how can he justify forking over more than half a

million dollars to his friends and supporters for less than three weeks

of work last summer?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. She may well remember 16

years ago, when the government last changed, that there was a transition

process. There was a transition process, where people that are working

with the government to make the change from one to the other come into

place. This is standard procedure. Nothing to see here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the Premier might like to think there’s nothing to see here.

Let’s take a little closer look at the list anyway. To qualify for a

contract, apparently it helps to be former B.C NDP provincial secretary

Keith Reynolds. He was offered one of the multiple direct-award $25,000

contracts for 17 days of work — 17 days. Nice work if you can get

it.

If you look at the list, contracts were to begin July 4 and end

July 21. But that’s not all. The biggest contract awarded was in excess

of $36,000 for just three weeks — expensive contracts for political

friends. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a partisan secretariat,

and the biggest surprise for taxpayers? They’re now funding

elections.

To the Premier: in the absence of any concrete jobs plan — we

certainly haven’t seen one — is rewarding his friends with contracts and

salaries the NDP version of a jobs plan?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think for those watching today in the galleries and those

watching at home that they’ll understand why you need to have a

transition from one hostile group to a new group.

[10:50 a.m.]

We’ve had nothing but support from those on the other side. We’ve

had nothing but goodwill and best wishes from the B.C. Liberals as we

try to clean up the mess that they left for British Columbians after 16

years.

T. Redies: I’d like to spend just a few minutes on who did benefit from the

Premier’s summer works program. Now, we know that the Premier has some

close ties with Vision Vancouver, so we shouldn’t be surprised that a

few of his Vision friends benefited from taxpayer-funded contracts —

people like Neil Moncton, David Perry and Tom Gunton.

But here’s the really interesting part. Documents tell us that

both Mira Oreck and Geoff Meggs were on contract until July 21, but on

July 18, the Premier’s office hired some staff. Guess who got those

ongoing jobs? Why, Mira Oreck and Geoff Meggs, who were given respective

salaries of $120,000 and $195,000.

To the Premier, were Mira Oreck and Geoff Meggs collecting money

from the original transition team contracts and at the same time

receiving a salary from the Premier’s office, and does he think that’s

appropriate?

Hon. J. Horgan: The answer is no to the latter question. And to the broader theme,

there were no compensation increases for any staff that were hired. The

people that took the positions that used to be occupied by B.C. Liberals

are being paid the same today as they were six months ago.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Thornthwaite: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The statement that was made by the

member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale had some incorrect statements with

regards to MLAs visiting Sutherland Secondary in the past. I’d like to put

that on the record.

Mr. Speaker: Are you reserving your right?

The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

B. Ma: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Ma: I failed to notice earlier that several members of the Capilano

University student union are with us here in the gallery today, representing

over 8,000 North Shore university students. It is an honour to have them

here with us, and I really hope that our question period did not scare them

away. Please join me in helping make them feel very welcome and encourage

them to return.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates on Forests, Lands, Natural

Resources. In Committee A, I call continued estimates, Ministry of Health and

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

[10:55 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:57 a.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $459,150,000 (continued) .

J. Rustad: This morning we’ll be exploring the rural development side, so

we’ll pass it over to the critic from Cariboo-Chilcotin. There will be

others that will join in over the course of the morning.

D. Barnett: Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister: first of all, Minister, I

would like to welcome your staff, who have worked so hard over the past

few years on rural economic development. I had the pleasure of working

with them and putting together a rural economic development strategy — a

first for British Columbia, I believe.

My question to the minister is: will your ministry be carrying on

with the economic development strategy that the past provincial

government put together?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank the member for welcoming the staff, and I’ll introduce who

we have again here today. There’s Deputy Minister Tim Sheldan, Assistant

Deputy Minister Trish Dohan, Assistant Deputy Minister Dave Peterson,

Assistant Deputy Minister Rick Manwaring and Assistant Deputy Minister

Mary Sue Maloughney.

Rural development is a topic that’s very dear to my heart, because

I live in communities that for a long time have witnessed not just high

unemployment but also a decrease in services over the years. I want to

acknowledge the work that was done by staff under the previous rural

development strategy. We’ll be building on that framework and broadening

it out.

My approach is to take a balance between the attract-and-retain

strategies and digging deeper into the local economies strategy. That’s

the recognition that economic development and social development are

closely linked and that there can’t be true robust economic development

without paying attention to the social development side as well. The

approach we’ll be taking, in building upon the rural development

strategy that was worked on by staff in the last few years, is an

approach of community economic development.

Community economic development principles are many, but I can just

mention five of them. They’re based on self-reliance, meaning an

increase of economic independence for communities. They’re

community-based, meaning facilitating community control on rural

development. They’re based on sustainability, making communities

resilient for the long term. They’re based on an asset base, which means

taking the resources and the talents and the abilities of the

communities and people in those communities and building on those for

the long term. Very importantly, it’s the principle of participatory

participation — that everyone in the communities deserves a voice in

rural development strategies, not just a few.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

The rural advisory council was from across the province of British

Columbia. It was made up of First Nations. It was made up of citizens.

It was made up of economic development officers, industry, local

governments. It was from across the province of British Columbia — not

just communities, not just municipalities but people in total rural

areas. This was a benefit to everyone.

In particular, if you look at the jobs that were created through

this project, as I understand from the answer of the minister, you will

not be carrying forward with this rural economic strategy. It will

become a level of government, not one where there’s input from all walks

of life.

So the answer is no, we will go back to a high-level regional

economic strategy, and those organizations out there that do good work

will not have an avenue for funding.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Perhaps the member didn’t understand or hear my last answer, where

I outlined the five community economic development principles that we’ll

be moving forward with in order to unite the economic approach with the

social approach. The one I emphasized was participatory — that every

voice deserves to be heard in communities around economic development,

not just a few. It is asset-based. It is sustainable. It is

community-based and self-reliant.

Those are the principles. I don’t know how I can be more clear

about the principles that relate to making sure that everyone has a

voice. The member mentioned strategy around all walks of life being

included. Those are the principles of community economic

development.

[11:05 a.m.]

D. Barnett: So the answer is still no, we are not carrying on with the same

process that we have been doing for the past while and putting together

this rural economic strategy with all walks of life from British

Columbia. To the minister: the answer is no, we are not going to carry

on with this strategy.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the rural development strategy that we’re building on is

going to be more in-depth and more broad than the last one.

I want to point out to the member that rural areas have witnessed

and experienced and lived through a higher unemployment rate than urban

areas as a result of the last 16 years of policies, and a decrease in

services. That’s not the kind of rural development strategy we’re

interested in promoting.

We’re interested in promoting a rural development strategy that,

as I said, is participatory so that people are having a voice, and those

most affected are having a voice. It is community-based, is asset-based,

is sustainable and is self-reliant. That’s the kind of strategy that

we’re going to be implementing.

As far as what’s happened in the past, there was a program

introduced in the last couple of years by the former government. Those

kind of programs always need review for tweaking. We’ve been

distributing the results of the third round from the rural dividend

program. So we’re carrying on, and we’re looking at ways to

improve.

I’m sure the member would agree that it’s always good to have eyes

and monitor and assess how programs are working, and if they’re working

to the standards and to the goals that a government has. Our goals, of

course, include a broader aspect than the previous government’s

involving all members of the community, as well as our commitment to

First Nations on a government-to-government basis, and that’s how we’ll

be proceeding.

D. Barnett: I would like to turn the speaking over to my colleague from Prince

George–Valemount.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for the time and for the

staff.

I want to begin by just reflecting on a comment that he made. I

know that estimates are an arduous process, and they’re long. While the

member complimented the staff for the work that they had done, I think

that’s certainly warranted. Having been a long-term minister in

Victoria, I recognize the excellence of the public service. But make no

mistake about it, Minister. Leadership is required by ministers and by

members as well.

If there is anyone in this Legislature at the moment who provided

leadership on the rural economic development file, it would be the

member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the rural advisory council that was

created.

I think it is important to reflect that staff certainly does do an

important job, but at the end of the day, it is about making the

determination about where something is going to go, how it’s going to

work and who’s going to drive that agenda. I want to give a lot of

credit to my colleague for her unbelievable passion on the whole issue

of rural economic development. Staff participated, absolutely did a

great job, but it was driven, and the leadership was

provided.

So just a straight up question to the minister. I take it, then,

that the B.C. rural advisory council will be disbanded.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The rural development strategy that we’re developing now is, as I

said, more in depth and more broad than the previous strategy. It’s

going to include both economic and social, and the five principles of

community economic development are going to be at its core. We’re going

to require an advisory group that lines up with that broader mandate,

and we’ll be contemplating that role for the advisory group.

S. Bond: I can only express my disappointment and, I’m sure, that of many

other British Columbians, when people were chosen for their expertise in

their regions — be it Vanderhoof, Armstrong, Port McNeill, McBride.

We’re simply now going to replace an advisory council that did

exceptional work and talked to people in their communities.

The minister talks about the need for consultation and

understanding people’s voices. That’s exactly what an advisory council

does. It listens to the people that it represents, and in fact, much of

the work that drove the rural economic development strategy actually

came from the rural advisory council — so obviously a very disappointing

response. I would hope the minister would reconsider that and look at

the exceptional people that are on that board. It’s not about being

partisan. It’s about that they are exceptional leaders in their own

right across a vast swath of British Columbia.

I heard the minister talk a little bit about the rural dividend

fund. He said that it may be reviewed or tweaked. Can we take it…? I

attended many meetings and much appreciated the opportunity to attend

with my communities at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The minister

heard about the rural dividend fund, at least in every meeting I was at,

and probably every single one where there was a rural

community.

Can the minister, then, confirm today that the rural dividend fund

will continue? It may well be tweaked, but that the general principles

of supporting communities, that there would be a rigorous application

process…. Can he confirm today that the rural dividend fund will

continue?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As the member alluded to, the third intake of the rural dividend

program was in May and then the long period of caretaker government,

resulting in the announcements just last week of $11 million in funding

awarded to successful applicants.

I definitely heard, through over 60 meetings at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities annual conference, from communities around what they felt

were the positive aspects of the rural dividend fund. I also heard some

criticisms.

I can agree with the member around the general principles and a

rigorous application process, and that’s what we want to work on into

the future. The rural dividend program…. We have a broader strategy for

rural development. The rural dividend type of program will be part of

that, and we’ll be further consulting with advisory bodies to determine

how broad and how the rural dividend program can be improved.

S. Bond: Well, I’m concerned when I hear the words “broadening the

categories.” Rural economic development is a pretty focused task,

particularly for small and rural and remote communities. Obviously,

we’ll be very interested in the discussion.

Again, I’m just going to have a few more questions on this area,

and then I’m going to go on to something more specific. But I do want to

ask: what will the budget for the rural dividend fund be?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As the member knows, the rural dividend fund per year, up to year

2019-20 in these budget estimates, is $25 million.

S. Bond: I guess just to close off my comments…. There are many more, but I

have other colleagues who want to participate. I think when good work is

done by British Columbians, particularly those who live in their

communities and every day face the struggles of how to diversify,

strengthen and grow an economy in rural British Columbia, they don’t

have time to wait for another whole process to begin.

The rural economic development strategy was developed with rural

British Columbians and led by a very competent group of people. I would

urge the minister to think about building on what has been provided and

done rather than: we need to put a particular stamp on the work that

moves forward.

This isn’t about partisan politics. This is about rural British

Columbia. Where I live, people don’t have time to wait for government to

talk about another study, another consultation, another report. They

want us to get on with finding ways to help them survive in their

communities.

On that note, I believe that the minister now has in his ministry

a team that I was very privileged to work with, the economic development

group that worked in regions across British Columbia. Can the minister

confirm that the team that originally was working in the Jobs Ministry

under the previous government is now contained in his ministry? And how

are they being linked to communities across the province?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the economic development group that the member referenced has

now moved entirely over into the ministry that I’m the minister

of.

Before I go onto that answer, though, I just want to make it clear

that the people in B.C. in rural areas aren’t going to be waiting for

anything, as the member alluded to. What this is about is building on

what is there and making it better. We’re not tearing something down

just because it was created by somebody else. That’s not the style I

employ.

[11:20 a.m.]

The style that I employ is to look at whether the organization and

the structure and the strategy is fulfilling what the goals are and then

making sure that it is and building from there. It’s a building process,

and nobody is sitting on their hands in the ministries or waiting for a

different process. We’re moving forward.

A good example of that is on connectivity across rural areas, an

important issue and something that communities have brought up and

something that was highlighted under the rural strategy and under the

rural dividend program. We’re still moving forward with that.

As far as how the current group moved into this ministry is

undertaking their work…. Well, we’ve reorganized the ministry. We now

have an ADM who is in charge of rural development, lands and innovation.

So really, those people who were doing economic development, the

regional economic officers, are actually benefiting from being more

closely connected with people in a ministry who are doing some of the

implementation of those programs. What we’re looking at is better

integration.

S. Bond: I’m encouraged by the minister’s comments about building. I think

that that will reassure some rural British Columbians who certainly

don’t have time for us to be sorting out who’s doing what.

I appreciate the realignment. I think that there probably is some

synergy there. I want to be sure that…. One of the major roles of that

team was that in times of economic distress — catastrophic

circumstances, mill closures, those kinds of things — that team was and

is exceptional on the ground. We basically considered them the front

line. They were the SWAT element, so to speak, of the ministry, and I

had received nothing but positive commentary about the work of that

group of people. They are connected on the ground. They know the

communities that they are working in.

Can the minister assure me that that aspect of their job and their

ability to work on the ground in those communities is being

retained?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the short answer is yes. Definitely in times of, as the

member typified it, economic distress, the transition team is still in

place. They are working closely with the regional operations staff, so

it’s even better integrated in that aspect. A good example of economic

distress is what’s happened with the wildfires and the communities that

are impacted by that. Also, taking a proactive role. You know you can’t

anticipate natural disasters, but as far as taking a proactive role to

increase resiliency in communities, a lot of the projects do that so

that when there is the unanticipated economic distress, then communities

are better positioned to deal with it.

S. Bond: I appreciate that answer. I think that, as I’ve said, they do an

excellent job. Sadly, I think that there are going to be times we’re

going to need them.

The critic has been very generous with her time. I’m going to end

with just putting two things on the record. I certainly will set up a

meeting with the minister to talk more directly about them. One of them,

of course, is the situation in McBride. No one in this House will be

surprised that I bring forward constituency issues on a regular basis

and with a fair degree of vigour.

McBride, as the minister well knows, lost a mill in a devastating

fire. Thirty jobs were lost in a community of probably a population of

just over 500 people — more in the region, of course. We set up a team

to work at that time, as we would with a transition issue anywhere in

British Columbia, to support the community, the village of

McBride.

I would like just assurance from the minister that that support

remains in place, that we continue to look for ways to grow and

diversify the economy.

[11:25 a.m.]

I want to thank the FLNRO team in Prince George and the region for

being so helpful in trying to find a fibre supply so that we can

actually rebuild a mill. It is absolutely essential that we see some

sort of progress. I would just like reassurance that the team will

remain around there. Again, I know the deputy will pass on our thanks.

Some really creative thinking is going on there, and that’s going to be

necessary.

The last comment is about Valemount and Valemount Glacier

development, the resorts branch. We went through an arduous process to

bring us to a place where we could see the kind of progress that we’ve

seen with Valemount Glacier. It is a chance for a rural community to

diversify and grow its economy in an unprecedented way.

I would just, again, like assurance that the ministry is keeping

an eye on that file and making sure that it continues to move forward

because, in the case of McBride and Valemount, both of them have

enormous opportunities in front of them. But they require that ongoing

support. I thank the minister for his time.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for highlighting two communities that I visit on

occasion. I appreciate those communities and, to a large extent, the

beautiful area surrounding them. It’s just spectacular.

I met with McBride council during the Union of B.C.

Municipalities’ AGM, along with their community forester. Yes, the

support team is still in place there and are working with McBride. The

district manager has been meeting with him regularly to come up with

volume ideas, especially from the community forest. But we know that the

current mill owner is interested in reinvesting. I think those are

really good opportunities because they’re solid opportunities. They’re

pre-existing and could be brought into production probably more quickly

than some absolutely new venture.

Valemount. It was interesting to me. As a new minister, I was

aware of many aspects of the ministry, but one that I hadn’t

familiarized myself with was in master development agreements around

mountain resorts. It was something new. We’re definitely still involved

with that one. I know the area, and I know the potential as far as the

kind of resort that they’re anticipating. On the First Nations side, the

consultation has been very deep on that.

I look forward to being able to make more announcements on the

Valemount project.

D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague for her questions.

Will there be a fourth intake of the rural development fund moving

forward?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There will definitely be a fourth distribution of the rural

dividend funds that are remaining for the fiscal year. Given the nature

of the natural disasters that we’ve had this year, that requires a

revisiting of the criteria and how those funds will be

distributed.

[11:30 a.m.]

D. Barnett: So the priority, I understand, for the balance of the funds will

be for those affected by floods and by wildfire.

Is the rural dividend fund now going to be utilized for recovery

funding from wildfires and flooding, or is there going to be a separate

account within your budget for these items?

I find that rural economic development must carry on. To take the

funds from rural economic development that have been set aside and now

put them into a disaster fund is, in my opinion, shortchanging our rural

communities that have made plans to utilize the rural dividend now and

in the future.

Does the minister intend to take the balance of the funds and use

it for disasters, or will rural economic development, as it has been

seen, carry on?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the remaining rural dividend funds that will be distributed

are not a disaster fund. I want to assure the member that that’s not how

we’re going to typify it. It’s not directly associated as a disaster

fund or a recovery fund.

It’s the projects that many rural communities have already

identified — and identified to me in many of the meetings at the Union

of B.C. Municipalities annual general meeting — that are related to

actual longer-term rural development initiatives that attract people to

the area, that improve the quality of life for people living in rural

communities and that can be a springboard to further economic and social

development.

I just want to make sure that the member is clear that these funds

are not being redirected into a disaster fund. It’s a rural development

dividend initiative.

D. Barnett: I’m still not satisfied — I’m sorry, Minister — with the

answer.

Local governments are great assets. I was there for 17 years. This

rural dividend goes beyond municipality boundaries. This dividend has

been utilized by many First Nations, by small communities,

unincorporated, not connected to any local government. This is where

economic development needs to carry on.

We keep talking about local governments, and we forget those out

there. That’s basically why we started this rural dividend. It was to

ensure that in areas where people live, where people do need jobs and

assistance, it happens, not through local governments and not through

any other avenue.

Will this carry on in the same context? Or is it completely going

to be changed to the regional level, just to local government

level?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the intent of the disbursement of the remaining rural

dividend dollars is to benefit those living in rural areas. Now, I am

fully aware that everybody living in a rural area doesn’t live in a

municipality. Some live in regional districts, and of course, there are

many First Nations communities as well. This disbursement will be

available to those people.

Those living in areas that have no local government

representation, whether it’s a regional district or a municipality — I

have some people, for instance, in Stikine who are in areas like that —

have other mechanisms, local organizations, where we are able to flow

the funds through.

So just to make sure the member knows that this disbursement will

be for all communities. As the previous member discussed, we want it to

be a rigorous application process, and the general principles that apply

now will apply into the future.

J. Rustad: I’ve heard talk about tweaking the rural dividend fund. But more

importantly here, I believe I heard the minister say that he would like

to see a focus on the areas impacted by the fires. I understand that the

areas impacted by the fires do need support. They need the investment.

There’s no question, and I don’t think anybody would argue

that.

Is the minister suggesting that he was going to be taking funds

away that would normally be allocated to potential projects from other

rural communities to be focused on the fire area? Or will the minister

commit to adding additional funds for these development opportunities in

the fire areas so that the other areas across the province in rural B.C.

are not seen as paying for the investments that the minister would like

to be able to see in the areas impacted by the fires?

Hon. D. Donaldson: That’s a good question to clarify. We’re not taking this money

away from anyone else, any other communities. We just distributed, under

the third intake, $11 million, and it was distributed across the

province.

I can’t speak to the future above the $25 million that’s in this

budget estimates per year. We’ll be making Treasury Board submissions

for the next fiscal year on that $25 million or increased

funding.

As far as priorities, obviously we have some communities that are

impacted more than others as far as rural development goes. We have our

fire recovery strategies employed under our four important areas. I

won’t go over them again.

As far as the prioritization of projects that takes place normally

during the rural dividend review process, that’s something that we’ll

ensure considers the needs of communities in the impacted areas, as far

as rural development goes.

J. Rustad: I’m not quite sure if I understood what he said with that. Maybe

I’ll ask the question in a bit of a different way.

[11:40 a.m.]

My understanding of the $25 million. There was $14 million left

this fiscal year. I understand there’ll need to be a Treasury Board

submission if the program is going forward, even though I understand

from the budget that the line item that contains that $25 million is

still there in the projected year 2 and year 3. So I’m not sure why

there is a need for the Treasury Board submission around that, but in

any case, we’ll ask that question next spring.

The key here is there’s about $14 million, or thereabouts, in my

understanding, left for distribution this year. There are many

communities around the province, whether they have suffered from fires

or not, that are in need of economic development.

I understand the prioritization. What I am concerned about is that

the rural dividend fund will be used to help offset, in terms of

recovery for these areas impacted, rather than be used for what its

intent was, and that’s to be able to help all the rural communities

around the province.

My hope is this minister will be advocating for additional funds

for that offset and that need in the impact area, rather than taking an

existing program and reallocating those dollars to be able to help the

needs in that area at the expense of other communities.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m definitely advocating for additional funds, especially with

the federal government, around the recovery aspect, for instance, and

the future prevention activities in the forest surrounding communities.

That work is underway.

I just want to give an example. For instance, an example would be

fencing. I mean, we already have, under our recovery program, a program

in place to assist ranchers with fencing that was destroyed during the

wildfire season. That is under our recovery envelope. It’s not something

that would be considered under the remaining, as the member said,

approximately $14 million for this fiscal year that is still in the

rural dividend envelope.

D. Barnett: You have some economic development officers under your ministry

that have been in place for some time, regional economic development

officers. Now, you have those in place. You also now are funding what

you call recovery managers in municipalities and regional districts to

go out and gather information.

Could you please explain why two different job descriptions for

basically the same job? What is the budget for this? How long will these

recovery managers be in place? Who will they be working with? How far

will their mandate expand to bring information back to the minister as

to what type of recovery is needed in the regions? And what is your full

budget once they come back with the recovery plan?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ve got a couple of parts of that answer. The recovery managers

that are in eight communities — or are scheduled to be in eight

communities; I believe they’re in the eight communities now — are not

employees of this ministry. They are employees of the communities. Their

resource support came through the disaster financial assistance

arrangements with the federal government.

The whole concept there was to ensure that communities developed

their own recovery plans. What we heard from communities consistently is

that they didn’t want a top-down approach. They wanted the ability to

develop their own recovery plans, and we heard that and responded to it

by securing this funding from the federal government so that the

communities could hire their own recovery manager to help determine the

communities’ priorities.

The member will know very well that many of the communities,

smaller communities, are very stressed when it comes to human resources.

So having the ability to draw on another person and having the funds for

that person to actually come up with the community’s priorities, in

consultation with community members and organizations, is a pretty

important role. It’s part of our philosophy that communities develop

their own recovery plans.

The regional economic development officers are part of this

ministry’s complement. When that program came over for the regional

economic officers from the previous ministry, it was approximately a

$2.2 million transfer of resources. The regional economic officers are

the contact point for all government programs in the regions. In some

instances, the recovery managers will be in touch with those regional

economic officers.

[11:50 a.m.]

The whole point about what recovery plan resources will be

required — that’s being built up from the grass roots, from communities.

Of course, that will be subject to a budget submission for the next

fiscal year, and we’ll build that budget submission as we get feedback

from the communities, from the work that the recovery managers have

done.

For instance, when I met with the Williams Lake council, they felt

it would take about six weeks — this was back to the UBCM — before they

had that recovery plan in a form that was specific enough and efficient

enough and realistic enough to ask for a dollar figure to be associated

with that recovery plan. That’s the kind of process that we’re embarking

on.

S. Thomson: A very quick question, maybe just to seek more clarity. I know

both my colleagues have been trying to seek clarity around the remaining

rural dividend funds that are available in this fiscal year, the $14

million that is left. Many applicants, as you know, in the previous

program applied for planning grants at the $10,000 level in the program,

with the anticipation that that would provide them the opportunity to

apply for the next step, the higher level of program applications, the

$100,000 cap or the $500,000 program, in terms of a

partnership.

Just for clarity, in this fiscal year, with the remaining funds in

the program, are those communities going to be eligible? Is there going

to be an intake that will allow those communities to apply for funds? We

all understand the importance of addressing the issues in the

fire-impacted areas, but I think what communities outside of those areas

want to know is whether they’re still going to have access to the fund

in the next intake, within the $14 million that is currently left in

this year’s funding.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the warning, and thank you for my first direct

question from the member who held the position I hold right now. Thank

you for that.

A couple of things. The planning grant of $10,000 I know was very

valuable to communities. Coming from a very small community, I know that

kind of funding isn’t readily available. The former minister, the

member, will know that simply because a community was in receipt of a

planning grant didn’t necessarily mean they were green-lighted for

further grants within the rural dividend program. But it definitely put

them in place for project proposals for all types of future government

programming. It wasn’t just that the $10,000 would help them in that

aspect of the rural dividend but other programs as well.

[11:55 a.m.]

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the fire-impacted communities

are going to need rural dividend support like they wanted before the

fires, and that will happen under the $14 million remaining. But the

balance of that will be available for the kinds of programs the former

minister, the member, outlined.

I want to make sure that there’s some feeling of assurances out

there in the rural communities that the remaining rural dividend dollars

will go towards the kinds of programs that had been forwarded by

communities.

J. Rustad: Thank you. That will wrap it up for the rural development side

here today. This afternoon we’ll start off, once again, with a few

things on fire recovery and go into other components.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $4,941,000 (continued) .

Hon. J. Darcy: I wanted to revisit a couple of issues that arose yesterday. There

was a question about staffing at the Crosstown Clinic. I would like to

provide that information to the members.

[11:05 a.m.]

There were questions about the Crosstown Clinic staffing. There

are two full-time equivalent social workers, four RNs or registered

psych nurses, one FTE charge registered nurse, two FTE clinic support

workers, one FTE nurse practitioner, three physicians, one FTE medical

office assistant and one FTE clinical coordinator. That’s the staffing

information.

There was another question that was raised yesterday that I would

like to revisit. That was the issue of secure care. I have been speaking

with parents from many different communities and different types of

families, and I’ve certainly heard consistently that there are serious

gaps in access to the services that our children and youth

need.

Many families are really struggling and can’t get access to

services their children with mental health or addictions need. Parents

have told me that different service providers don’t coordinate services

or won’t or can’t share information with each other or with parents.

I’ve heard from families in the Cowichan Valley that there are no youth

addiction treatment beds at all in their community. I’ve heard from

families who were not able to access mental health supports for their

children in school when we know intervening early can help issues from

becoming worse.

I’ve also talked with many parents who fear for the safety of

their children who use drugs but refuse or leave treatment. They feel

helpless, and their entire focus is on keeping their child alive. Some

of those I’ve spoken to have called for government to find ways to

compel their child into addictions treatment.

In Paige’s Story , published by the Representative for

Children and Youth in 2015, it was recommended that government explore

the creation of a form of secure care with all appropriate legal

safeguards that would allow for the apprehension of vulnerable children

and youth whose situation places them at an unacceptable level of risk.

To date, safe care legislative proposals have never been passed into law

in British Columbia, largely due to the concerns about scope and

application of the proposed legislation, infringement on youth’s rights

and the potential impact on Aboriginal youth.

This is a very complex issue. We need to look at the evidence on

how effective this approach is and the experience of other jurisdictions

that have moved in this direction. This is an issue that we will examine

as part of our work to develop a strategy to create a seamless,

coordinated system of mental health and addictions care that supports

families effectively and that supports child and youth mental

health.

The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions will be the lead in

examining the evidence and legislative and policy implications related

to any implementation of safe care legislation focused on young people

at risk of extreme harm due to substance use. This work aligns with the

ministry’s mandate to create and examine policy directions focused on

mental health and addictions.

The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Family

Development would have a responsibility to consider any policy

directions from the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. Should any

version of safe care legislation be implemented, the Ministry of

Children and Family Development would ultimately be responsible for

service delivery.

That is a much more fulsome answer and a slightly corrected answer

from the one that I gave yesterday.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for the clarification. Yes, indeed, yesterday the

minister had directed me to the Minister of Children and Families with

regards to this issue.

I will want to canvass a few questions on that topic, but first of

all, I have a colleague that would like to ask a question. Because he’s

got to get into the other House, I thought I’d let him go

first.

L. Throness: I have a two-part question today. My first question is for the

Minister of Health, and the second is to our new Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions.

I gave a two-minute statement, which I’m sure the minister was

listening to with rapt attention, in the House just a moment ago about

the assisted living registry and about VisionQuest, which operates in my

riding. It has space for about 40 men who would otherwise be on the

streets of the Fraser Valley, prolifically offending.

[11:10 a.m.]

They are providing a very tangible and substantial public benefit

every hour of the day, but they can hardly afford to keep going because

the amount that is provided per client is very low — just under $31 per

day to pay for everything. It was my idea that perhaps we could provide

much more long-term treatment for more people by ramping up support for

the non-profit sector.

The other thing that needs to be done is to create a professional

association that will help these people to set standards and to push out

bad actors, because there are some bad actors in the system. I’m

wondering: has the minister considered ramping up the non-profit sector

by providing more support and regulation for them?

My second question, which I’ll just deliver and sit down: I want

to know from our new minister whether she could comment….

Hon. J. Darcy: Could we do these one at a time?

L. Throness: Okay, sure.

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We know that

putting in place a seamless, coordinated system for mental health and

addictions is going to involve everybody stepping up to the plate. We

plan to work…. As we develop our plan for a far more effective system

than we have now, we will be working with and consulting with and

engaging a variety of stakeholders across the system.

This is not about one-size-fits-all. The continuum of supports

that needs to be in place ranges from saving peoples’ lives in the

overdose crisis and harm reduction to support for recovery programs and

treatment programs of a wide variety. Again, it’s not

one-size-fits-all.

We would be happy to learn more about the particular program that

is offered. If the member has more information that he can share with my

ministry, I would be very happy to see it. We will be looking at all

options as we go forward.

L. Throness: I just want to inform the minister that we have, in Chilliwack,

about 400 homeless people. It has at least doubled in the past couple of

years. The crime rate in Chilliwack is double the national average.

There are just horrendous problems in my community, most of them related

to addiction. I want to pledge my support to the minister if she can

ramp up addictions treatment.

Now, I wanted a comment on the emphasis that the government places

on harm reduction versus abstinence-based, long-term treatment. Could

the minister comment on the emphasis that she would see placed? I

understand that public policy is always a matter of emphasis. It’s never

none of one and all of the other. But what kind of emphasis does our new

minister place on abstinence-based, long-term treatment, which I will

happily say that I favour?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: Before I get into my comments, I wanted to just read a quote from

the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, a definition of recovery. They

say: “Recovery is a process of change through which individuals improve

their health and wellness, live a self-directed life and strive to reach

their full potential.” I think that’s an important starting place,

because it recognizes that there are many pathways to hope. There are

many pathways to recovery, and recovery looks very different for

different people.

We know that we need to strengthen our treatment and recovery

programs across the spectrum. That includes supports in the community,

out-patient services, access to counselling, treatment beds and recovery

homes. The member asked a question, which we did actually discuss

yesterday, about recovery homes, some of which are very bad actors. That

certainly will be part of our strategy going forward — ensuring that if

a facility calls itself a recovery house, it actually meets the

standards of care that it needs to in order to provide a pathway to

recovery and hope.

It has been widely accepted in this province and, frankly, in this

country, with the exception perhaps of the Stephen Harper federal

government, that a four-pillar approach to addictions is the approach

that we should follow. That’s the approach of our government. It’s the

approach of the former government in British Columbia. That four pillars

approach speaks to prevention, harm reduction, treatment and

enforcement.

Let me just touch on some of those. The prevention side. We

discussed that quite a bit yesterday — the issue of prevention, the

issue of early intervention. We need to fundamentally rebuild our system

for child and youth mental health in this province. It has been left in

a state of disarray that has been the subject of numerous reports by the

Representative for Children and Youth, numerous tragedies of children

and youth who have fallen through the cracks. That piece is absolutely

critical to ensuring that we do prevention at a very, very early age so

that for kids in school who are dealing with early stages of mental

illness, it doesn’t turn into severe mental illness and they don’t, in

turn, turn to substance use.

Treatment is absolutely critical — I could not agree with the

member more — treatment and recovery programs. I have to tell you that

on Overdose Awareness Day here in Victoria — it was held across the

province, across the country — a number of weeks ago, I met with the

parents of a young woman. She’s in her 20s now. She was sexually

assaulted in her teens and, as a result of that deep, deep trauma, ended

up turning to street drugs and became addicted.

They spend every waking hour of their day trying to keep their

daughter alive. They said to me — and they were weeping as they were

saying it — that there are no treatment beds available for young women

in Victoria, and the wait-list in the Lower Mainland and elsewhere is

very, very long. So yes, we absolutely need to rebuild our system for

treatment and recovery. It’s not a reasonable expectation that it could

be done in 12 weeks after 16 years of neglect.

Harm reduction. The bottom line with harm reduction is that people

have to be alive in order to be able to go into treatment and get to

recovery. When we’re seeing four people a day dying in British Columbia

in the worst public health emergency in decades, surely the member would

agree that we need to do everything possible to save their lives and to

treat those people who are living with addictions, many of whom are

homeless. Approximately 70 percent of the people who are living on the

streets are suffering from mental health and addictions.

Surely the member would agree that it is critical, that it’s an

urgent priority and that it should be an urgent priority for our

government to keep those people alive and then to be able to get them

into treatment — and not six weeks from now, not six months from now,

not a year from now. If we save their lives from overdose with a

naloxone kit, we should be able to offer them treatment and a pathway to

hope right away. We don’t have that system in place now. That’s a

product of 16 years of neglect.

[11:20 a.m.]

We are working as quickly as we can. We have a clear mandate from

the Representative for Children and Youth to have a plan for child and

youth mental health in place a year from now, but we’re beginning to

take some steps already in this budget and will in the months to

come.

L. Throness: About a year ago in the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned

health officials about their goal for addictions treatment. They said

that their goal for addictions treatment was to help addicts live

positive lives.

I want to ask about the minister’s goal. Would she treat addiction

like a disease and aim to cure their addiction, like any other disease

would be cured by the health system? Or does she just want to help

addicts live positive lives? Is it better to be off drugs, or is it

better to be maintained on drugs in a positive way? Could the minister

comment?

Hon. J. Darcy: Let me read this into the record again, because I think this

quote, which is from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, says it

very, very well: “Recovery is a process of change through which

individuals improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life

and strive to reach their full potential.” I’m not a clinical expert;

neither is the member opposite. People living with addictions should be

in a position to rely on clinical experts, to have access to clinical

experts.

I spoke with a man last night, a father, for an hour. He told me

the story about his son who died from overdose. It was a long and

complicated story. But one piece of it involved him going to an

emergency room, seeking help, being given a card that he then called and

waiting eight months to see an addiction specialist — so a long and

complicated journey.

We have serious, serious gaps in our system. We need to provide

help and support and care for people wherever they are in their journey

in order to rebuild their lives, and hopefully, for the majority of

those people, that will be recovery, full recovery. But recovery looks

different for different people. We want them to be able to live healthy,

productive lives. It’s really easy, and I guess it might make good media

stories, to focus on one part of that continuum. But I can tell you….

And you weren’t here yesterday, Member. I understand. We all have duties

elsewhere.

I told the story of a young man named Kyle who was treated at the

Crosstown Clinic in Vancouver. There are many stories. Last Door

Recovery program in New Westminster, which is a full abstinence-based

program, does amazing, amazing work. I take my hats off to them, and I’m

a total supporter of the work that they do. But not everybody is going

to…. That’s not the path for everyone, or it may take several steps to

get on the journey to get to that place.

For Kyle, for instance, at the Crosstown Clinic, who had become

addicted to street drugs at age 15 and who was incarcerated a dozen

times at least, with his life spiralling out of control…. He was

referred to the Crosstown Clinic. This young man got one diploma as a

cook and is working as a cook and giving back to his community, working

as a peer support worker, helping to support and counsel other people

living with addictions. And he’s also getting his hairdressing

diploma.

He is living a healthy and productive life in British Columbia.

That was his pathway to hope, but it’s not the same. People need

clinical guidance and clinical support to get them to the place that

works so they can get on that pathway, whatever it looks

like.

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to ask the minister whether or not…. I happen to know,

with the work that I’ve been doing in my critic position…. I’ve been

talking to many of the same people that you have been talking

to.

I’d like to know whether or not she has a knowledge of the beds

that are available for mental health and addiction in private facilities

and whether or not this government would consider funding empty beds

that are available in private facilities from public funds.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: We don’t have an inventory of private beds. The government, as the

member knows, already does pay subsidies to some private recovery

facilities and to some private residential treatment facilities. As the

member also no doubt knows, in order to be eligible for a subsidy for

these facilities, which are very, very expensive in many cases, you have

to be very poor, basically, to be eligible for social assistance or

disability assistance in order to be subsidized. This means that there’s

a whole spectrum of people who aren’t eligible for subsidy because

they’re not poor enough.

At the other end of the spectrum, people who may have excellent

employee assistance plan programs or extended health plans or may have

considerable financial means of their own…. I’ve certainly spoken with

people who have taken out loans of tens of thousands of dollars in order

to support a family member in care. We will be looking at the entire

spectrum of forms of care, care providers, as we develop a strategy over

the coming year for a comprehensive system for mental health and

addictions in British Columbia.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay, well, thank you. I think I’m happy with that answer, that

you, the ministry, will be considering utilizing the so-called empty

beds that are available in private facilities, such that we’re not

reinventing the wheel.

I guess what our worry is, is that the cost and expense of

developing numerous facilities perhaps wouldn’t be necessary if we could

just utilize the beds that are already available. I think you said that

you were going to look into that, so I’m happy with that answer — if I

have understood your answer. Maybe not?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: What I said was that we will be looking at a wide range of options

of existing facilities, what new treatment is necessary. The member can

appreciate that that is all part of developing a strategy for mental

health and addictions. We don’t have that strategy yet, and we will be

considering all options as we go forward.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay. That’s good — considering all options. Thank you.

Now I’d like to just go back to the secure care issue that now is

back in your ministry. It was in MCFD yesterday, but now it’s back here.

So this is good. I have some questions, specifically about the mandatory

counselling and treatment.

I do not know if the minister is aware of the issue of Kimberly

Proctor and Kimberly’s law that encompasses, actually, not just

provincial jurisdictions but also federal. Obviously, I’m not going to

talk about the federal end of it. I’m going to talk about the provincial

end of it, and I’ve got some questions.

What happened to this poor child, this youth, was that she was

murdered and dismembered by some youth in her school that knew her. That

was sad enough, but the extremely sad part about it is that the two

youth that were the perpetrators, young offenders, were known to the

system for many years. They were identified in the schools of having

behaviours that were indicative of worry, and there was a whole history

that the schools had identified that these individuals were at high risk

to seriously harm either themselves or each other, or certainly somebody

else. In this tragic case, it involved Kimberly Proctor.

My question has to do with mandatory treatment. We talk about

mandatory treatment for those who need mental health assistance for

themselves, parents desperately trying to get their children into mental

health facilities or recovery facilities, treatment facilities. My

question is directed with regards to mandatory treatment for individuals

who perhaps might be protected by their family members. So they’re not

getting help from their immediate family members, but it is quite clear

from the school system, the psychiatrists and medical profession that

these people need help and need it now in order to prevent injuries to

themselves or to others.

My question to the minister is: in your strategy, with regards to

looking at the secure care issues, would you consider mandatory

treatment for potential offenders?

Hon. J. Darcy: Of course, mandatory treatment and secure care, the issues that

the member has canvassed, are all issues that we will need to look at as

part of developing an effective system for mental health and addictions.

So, yes, these are issues that we will be looking at. The member is

aware that these are very, very complicated questions, and there isn’t….

We need to be guided at all times, also, by clinical decisions when

these determinations are being made.

[11:35 a.m.]

I want to come back to the issue of prevention, because if we had

a more robust system in our schools for early identification of issues —

in this case, on the part of the youth who were involved in perpetrating

the actions the member referred to…. If we had stronger systems in place

in our schools for early intervention and prevention, perhaps we would

not get to this place.

We have a very, very challenging situation today in the child and

youth mental health system in general and in our schools in particular.

As a result of 16 years of neglect, there’s an awful lot of work that

needs to be done in order to build up those supports in our school

system so that we can detect those problems early and prevent problems

from occurring.

J. Thornthwaite: I know I have heard this mantra, the 16 years of neglect. I would

like to remind the minister that the previous government spent $1.42

billion annually on mental health and addictions, so this was not

something that was neglected. We all admit — myself, you…. Everybody in

this room, I’m assuming, agrees that we need to do more for these

children and youth in schools. This is something I have been personally

advocating for, for four years and certainly have driven many ministers

up the wall with regards to the way that I’ve been advocating for it. We

are all very, very familiar that more needs to be done.

With regards to the issue of the mandatory treatment, though, it’s

different, because it’s part of the secure care. These children and

youth were identified as needing mandatory treatment, but at the same

time, despite the efforts of the school system and despite the efforts

of the professionals, they were unable to get the help.

You probably would like to elaborate a little bit more on the

secure care end of it, but I would urge…. Whenever these talks are going

on and these consultations are going on with regards to the Secure Care

Act or, in the case of the bill that private member Gordie Hogg brought

forward earlier this year called the Safe Care Act…. These are the types

of things with regards to mandatory treatment that would be considered

in potential adoption of

an act of that sort.

Hon. J. Darcy: I’ll just reiterate that of course, we’ll be looking at issues for

secure care and mandatory treatment, both very complicated issues, as

part of our mandate going forward.

I want to come back to the issue, though, of our schools and early

intervention. I don’t question for one moment the member opposite’s

commitment to these issues and the advocacy she has done in her time in

this Legislature. But I do think it’s important for us to remember that

the government she was part of spent 16 years fighting with teachers

over issues about class size and class composition that are integrally

linked to the supports that our children need in their

schools.

I’m sure the member opposite, as all of us have, has spent time

talking to parents struggling to get the supports their kids need in the

classroom or the mental health supports in the school system. I’m sure

that she has spoken with teachers and educators about the challenges

they face. There is an awful lot of rebuilding that needs to be

done.

The Representative for Children and Youth has been eloquent about

the inadequacies in the system and has asked us, as a new government, to

develop a strategy for child and youth mental health within one year of

when his report on Joshua’s story was released, and we plan to respect

that commitment, But there’s an awful lot of work to do.

J. Thornthwaite: I agree there’s going to be a significant amount of help with

regards to classroom size and composition, with regards to the schools,

for teachers. That’s great, more teaching positions. But when we’re

talking about mental health and we’re talking about addictions and

trauma care or the ability of professionals to help children in schools,

it’s more than just teachers. There are other professionals that are

needed to get into the school system.

[11:40 a.m.]

That’s why what we canvassed yesterday was the partnerships

between, say, Vancouver Coastal Health and the Foundry at the

Mountainside Secondary. This was a holistic environment that

encompassed, obviously, not just trained teachers to teach but also

trained professionals in mental health and addictions to also help

within their specialty within the school system. I hope that that isn’t

lost.

My other question was…. I wanted to make sure I got this in,

because I know we’re going to run out of time. A colleague of mine, who

is actually in the other room asking questions to another ministry….

This is the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. Obviously, she has been a

strong advocate for rural British Columbia for many years. Her question

is with regards to mental health and addictions treatment in rural

communities and whether or not the minister, or the new ministry, was

going to put the same calibre of services in rural British Columbia as

will be instigated here in the urban centres.

Hon. J. Darcy: Let me just return briefly to the previous question, the member’s

comments on the previous answer, before moving on.

There is no question that it takes a team, it takes a community,

and it takes a province to support our children and our youth more

effectively. We absolutely need more mental health supports in our

schools, and we absolutely need our schools to be part of hubs and

networks in the community to give our young people the best possible

support and the best possible chance in life.

I think the member would also agree that teachers are the front

line and that when kids are acting up in class and exhibiting what are

seen first to be behavioural problems in the class, it’s really the

teacher that is the first point of contact. It’s the teacher that is

able to say, if they have the time — if they’re not overwhelmed with

classes too big and classes with significant numbers of children with

learners…. It’s for them to be able to then identify for the mental

health professionals and the school counsellors: “I think that maybe

this child is dealing with ADHD, or suffering from anxiety or

depression.” They’re not the clinical folks, but they’re often the ones

that experience how the issue plays out in the classroom

first.

There is certainly a connection between having adequate numbers of

teachers and special education assistants in the classroom as part of a

team that includes mental health professionals.

On the issue of rural British Columbia, boy, did I hear an earful

at the recent meeting of Union of B.C. Municipalities. I met with dozens

of municipalities, the majority of them rural communities, also a number

of smaller urban centres. One after another after another spoke to me

about the inadequacy of treatment programs and mental health programs in

their communities and of how much more challenging it is to deal with

the issue of stigma, often, in smaller communities.

One mayor or councillor after another told me about people getting

on a bus to a treatment facility that was ten hours away, 12 hours away,

and what a challenge that was for the individual who had reached the

point of seeking treatment and then had to travel that very long

distance. They used the term…. We talk about people falling off the bus

or falling off the wagon. They said people literally, in that journey to

treatment and in the journey after treatment, coming back to their

communities — that that can be a very risky proposition. Many people

literally decide to get off the bus in the process.

[11:45 a.m.]

People have talked about the need for treatment programs in

communities, for mental health and addictions teams in their

communities. I have to say that at the gathering of First Nations

leaders and our cabinet and MLAs, I heard the same story from First

Nations communities right across British Columbia — in that case, and

this is often in even more remote communities, the absence of treatment

services and the absence of mental health counselling programs and the

kinds of serious, serious challenges that Indigenous communities are

facing with suicide epidemics and three times the number of people dying

from overdose as the population at large. So absolutely, our strategy

for an improved system for mental health and addictions will have a

very, very strong component for rural communities.

I want to say that, just in this budget, we have committed

significant resources to working with Indigenous people in British

Columbia. We will be working closely with the First Nations Health

Authority, the Métis Nation and the friendship centres so that we are

addressing the needs of status and non-status Indians and Métis people.

There is a crying need for support with addiction services, treatment

programs, recovery programs, as well as immediate response to the

overdose crisis.

J. Thornthwaite: I know that we’re running out of time and that I’m supposed to be

doing my final remarks.

I would like to thank the staff and both ministers for being here.

I’m encouraged that we’re part of a team. We recognize that this is a

really, really important issue — mental health and addictions and

recovery. It is a very, very important issue that this government has

said has got top priority. I’m very much looking forward to the results

of your strategies and your work moving forward.

Thank you to the minister and to her staff for listening to us and

for answering the questions.

Hon. J. Darcy: I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member opposite,

the spokesperson or critic for Mental Health and Addictions, for her

questions and for all of the MLAs who have posed questions. I certainly

look forward to working with you collaboratively. This building a better

system for mental health and addictions surely needs to be a

non-partisan issue where we take advantage of all of the best ideas from

everybody on all sides of the House as well as the province in

general.

I want to thank our team, who have worked diligently over a number

of weeks preparing materials for estimates. It’s my first opportunity to

be on this side of the House in estimates. I really appreciate the

opportunity to answer the members’ questions and to speak to the

commitment that our government has to creating a better system for

mental health and addictions — broadly speaking and in particular, a

better system for child and youth mental health as well as responding to

the public health emergency with the overdose crisis.

The Chair: Hearing no further questions, I will now call Vote

Vote 35: ministry operations, $4,941,000 — approved.

Hon. J. Darcy: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion

of the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions estimates and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada