Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 143

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Sara McDonald

R. Merrifield

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 2 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No.

4) Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. J. Osborne

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

French Creek estuary preservation

A. Walker

Lunar new year celebrations

T. Wat

Catherine Ludgate

N. Sharma

Burial site of Indigenous children at Williams Lake

residential school

L. Doerkson

Brookswood Secondary School students

A. Mercier

Black History Month

C. Oakes

Ministerial Statements

Chief Delgamuukw

Hon. N. Cullen

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Government response to overdose deaths

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

COVID-19 transmission and face masks in health care

facilities

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Service model change for children with support

needs and funding for autism services

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Dean

P. Milobar

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee, annual

review, budgets of statutory offices, December 2021

J. Routledge

B. Stewart

Personal Information Protection Act Review

Committee, statutory review, December 2021

M. Elmore

D. Ashton

Motions Without Notice

Amendment to Standing Orders for Thursday sitting

hours

Hon. M. Farnworth

Question of Privilege

A. Olsen

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Beare

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

S. Chant

D. Coulter

J. Tegart

S. Furstenau

B. Banman

H. Yao

M. Dykeman

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. B. Ma.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

S. Bond: I have two important tasks today.

First of all, on behalf of the official opposition and the new leader

of the B.C. Liberal Party, we want to say how happy we are to have the

Premier back in the Legislature. We, like all British Columbians, felt so

very concerned about the diagnosis of cancer and the follow-up treatment

that was necessary.

We also recognize that the Premier wasn’t the only one impacted by his

health care challenges — his family, his friends, his colleagues in this

place and his staff. From all accounts, the Premier continued to work and

face this difficult journey with a positive attitude and his sense of

humour.

Welcome back, Premier. Some things transcend parti­san politics,

and this is one of them. We wish you nothing but continued good health in

the days ahead.

Secondly, I also want to take the opportunity to welcome a very

special person to the Legislature today. He is definitely not a stranger to

this chamber, having served as a member of the Legislative Assembly for more

than a decade. During that time, he held many significant portfolios,

including Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance, Minister of Health, to name

just a few.

He’s passionate about British Columbia, and he has demonstrated that

with a long list of accomplishments during his time as an MLA and a cabinet

minister. He has also cared deeply about his community and province. He has

served on several non-profit organizations, including Canuck Place

Foundation and the Streetohome Foundation.

I know him to be the loving husband to his wife, Jessica, the proud

dad of daughters Josephine and Rose. In fact, they are the reason he made a

decision to return to public service. After a very lengthy leadership

campaign, on Saturday night, he was elected, in a decisive win, to be the

leader of the B.C. Liberal Party.

The next step will be for him to take his place in this seat as the

Leader of the Official Opposition. I have every confidence that the Premier

and his government will want to see that happen as quickly as we do. We are

very excited to welcome back someone I consider a friend and exceptional

colleague.

I hope colleagues will welcome Kevin Falcon as the Leader of the

Opposition very shortly and will help him, as our new B.C. Liberal leader,

feel welcome in the chamber today.

Welcome, Kevin.

Hon. J. Horgan: I had something to say yesterday about my appreciation to all of you.

I did not, at that time, say that there are other members of this House

facing the same challenges right now that I am. Of course, we all know who

those members are, and my thoughts go out to them and their families as they

go through what I know is a very challenging time.

Last Friday was World Cancer Day, and 85 people in British Columbia

had a diagnosis of cancer. The day after that, another 85, and the day after

that, another 85. Thirty-one thousand people this year will be diagnosed

with cancer. That’s not just 31,000 individuals but families and friends, as

the Leader of the Opposition said.

[1:40 p.m.]

This is something that affects all of us. I want to just say to those

members who are in this House right now grappling with this issue, we are

all behind you. As the member said, these types of things transcend the

politics.

We have had many moments in the past two years where we have all stood

and said those very things. I ap­preciate that we’re going to be going

into the rock-throwing session in about 15 minutes. Rocks need to be thrown,

and they will be knocked back. But when we’re doing that, we’re all doing it

with the sense of humanity that all of us come to represent. With that, I

thank the member for her intervention, and for those who almost brought a

tear to my eye yesterday, I appreciate that sentiment.

With that, I want to also offer my congratulations to…. Yesterday, in

a press conference, I said: “Minister.” I said: “No, I mean Member.” Then I

said: “No, I mean citizen.”

Citizen Falcon — I can call you that today — and, of course, leader of

the B.C. Liberal Party, congratulations. Welcome back. I know you’re a row

behind where you want to be, and we can work on that in the days and weeks

and months ahead.

B. Anderson: I would like to welcome my parents, who are visiting us today. This is

their first time that they’ve been able to join us here in the Legislature.

Their names are Deb and Terry Anderson, and they have been incredibly

supportive to me. They’re loving, they’re kind, and I’m fighting for people

and the environment because of them. They give me lots of inspiration, and I

love them so much.

K. Kirkpatrick: Today I’d like to welcome to the House Elena Lawson and Nancy Walton,

two very passionate advocates for young people with autism.

Thank you so much for being here today.

G. Kyllo: This may sound a little bit repetitive, but I’m standing now for my

tenth time to announce the birth of my tenth grandchild. We are blessed with

our tenth grandchild, our fourth grandson, Noah Glen Hansma, who was born on

the 29th of January.

I just want to give my daughter, Samantha, and Michael all the

congratulations, and his older brother, Harvey, who is now three and quickly

realizing that he’s no longer the centre of the universe, with little Noah

here.

Would the House please make Noah Glen Hansma feel very

welcome.

T. Halford: I often see them at pickup and drop-off at White Rock Elementary.

Today I am proud to recognize two constituents of mine that have joined us

to speak about the concerns regarding autism funding.

Rozann Pedersen and Dione Costanzo, I welcome you to the House

today.

T. Shypitka: Apparently, I have some work cut out for me to catch up to my

colleague from Shuswap. I would like to announce my second grandchild. Nina

Akiko Shypitka was born on January 23.

I’d love to give a big congratulations out to my son Dus­tin,

his wife, Julie, and Nina’s brother Hudson.

Please welcome Nina.

S. Cadieux: I am not announcing grandchildren. I feel really left out,

though.

I am pleased to welcome two fierce advocates to the House, Louise Witt

and Michele Clark.

Tributes

SARA M c DONALD

R. Merrifield: I rise today, actually, with some sadness. I want to rise to

acknowledge one of my constituents who sadly lost her life ten days ago.

Sara McDonald was a passionate advocate against, and for the end to,

ALS.

Today I’m going to use her words, published in a Vancouver

Sun

article just over a year ago: “I try very hard to stay

positive and be proactive concerning all aspects of my health, including

my emotional state. But it’s hard, and it’s getting harder. It is a

struggle to stay upbeat when my body is incrementally losing function in

a way that greatly impacts quality of life. Simple tasks like dressing

and moving around are becoming exhausting. Since losing the ability to

speak, it has become a challenge to stay connected to

others.”

[1:45 p.m.]

I had the privilege of meeting with Sara and her daughter, who

helped her to communicate, as I was serving as Health critic.

Today I rise to honour Sara’s life and to vow that I will continue

her fight to end ALS. Please join me.

Introductions by Members

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise today to acknowledge two mothers that are

here as part of the Enough is Enough rally to make sure that government

hears their voices and their families’ voices around the need for autistic

funding for their families and so many families like them in British

Columbia. Will the House please make welcome Diane Pearce and Stacy

Wallwork.

M. Bernier: Unlike my colleague from a few members ago that spoke, I’m actually

doing what I can to catch up to the member for Shuswap. I’m very excited for

my son Trevor and daughter-in-law Katelyn, who also just had my fourth

grandchild, Kian Robert Douglas Bernier. If the House would please help me

congratulate them.

J. Tegart: I’m here to complete the secret. You might have grandchildren, but I

have a great-grandchild, proud to welcome my first great-grandchild. What’s

his name? Beckett. I am a great-grandmother. Beckett Kellington, who today

weighs in at 14 pounds — two months old.

Welcome, Beckett, to the world.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. J. Osborne presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 4) Amendment Act, 2022.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 2. This bill amends the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2022, or

MEVA. These amendments are intended to support the village of Lytton

with their recovery process.

As members are all aware, the village suffered a devastating fire

on June 30, 2021. As a result of the fire, the village lost many of

their records and server backups, including copies of bylaws needed for

governance and administration. The amendments being introduced today

will support the village as they rebuild their suite of bylaws that were

destroyed in the fire.

Specifically, these amendments will support the village by

validating the repeal and replacement of bylaws that were lost during

the fire; enabling the Lieutenant-Gover­nor-in-Council to waive,

modify or exempt specific legislative requirements by regulation for

lost bylaws on a case-by-case basis and at the request of the village;

and, if necessary, validating actions or decisions of the village that

they may have taken in relation to a lost bylaw, as long as the actions

or decisions were not taken in bad faith.

Our government is listening to the needs of the village of Lytton,

and we are working closely with them to provide tools so they can

recover following the fire. The amendments to the MEVA are required to

address the unique circumstances that are faced by the village of

Lytton.

These amendments will assist the village in moving forward with

the recovery process by enabling council to take steps to re-establish a

full suite of bylaws to support governance and administration of the

village.

[1:50 p.m.]

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I’m pleased to table these

amendments today, which respond to the needs of the village of

Lytton.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act,

2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FRENCH CREEK ESTUARY PRESERVATION

A. Walker: Midway between Parksville and Qualicum Beach is a stream we know

today as French Creek. Let me share with the House the important work

underway to preserve its important estuary.

The Pəntl’áč people know this creek as swáxlhu7lh , which

means “a place of many coho.” For countless generations, this beautiful

space at the mouth of the creek was the site of a thriving village, a

place of culture, of commerce and in balance with nature.

When I spoke to biologist Dave Clough about the estuary, he told

me of his more than 40 years of working in this watershed. He shared

that it was the passionate work of volunteers Herman Vanderbyl, Pepper

McLeod and Marion Baker, early champions of habitat in French Creek,

that inspired him to become a professional biologist.

Dave said this estuary is an absolutely unique environmental area

that is seldom seen on the east coast of Vancouver Island. When you

connect the dots from the estuary upstream to Hamilton marsh and all the

way to the top of Mount Arrowsmith, you find a largely undeveloped

ribbon of habitat, despite its close proximity to our local

communities.

Every salmon that comes out of French Creek has to live in this

estuary. The salmon help support the ecosystems, from the crabs to the

bears to the eagles.

The preservation of this important habitat led the Save Estuary

Land and Friends of French Creek Conservation societies to team up to

try to raise half a million dollars to protect this 23-acre site and to

create Vancouver Island’s first eagle sanctuary. These societies are

already halfway to their goal of $1 million, including a generous

donation of $28,000 from the 100+ Women Who Care society.

This project brings our community together around a common cause.

It will inspire future generations to follow their environmental

preservation, and it will protect a rare and fragile

ecosystem.

Would the House please join with me in celebrating the tremendous

efforts of all of these hard-working people.

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

T. Wat: You have probably noticed my shirt this afternoon. I’m wearing it

today to honour the lunar new year and to help bring all of us good luck

and good fortune, including the Canucks.

On February 1, Asian communities across B.C. joined the more than

two billion people around the world who celebrate the lunar new year

every year and welcome in the Year of the Tiger. Although the traditions

and celebrations vary, the overall message stays the same.

This is a time of renewal, a time to give thanks, to prepare for

the challenges ahead and to celebrate the successes of the year behind

us, to join with friends and families and wish prosperity and good

fortune to those around us.

While the celebrations are usually capped off with par­ades,

fireworks and family gatherings, the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that

many of these activities have had to be cancelled or reduced in scope.

Nevertheless, Asian-Canadian community associations around the province

have gone above and beyond to hold virtual celebrations and

events.

Organizations like our own Vancouver Canucks have also found

incredible ways to honour the lunar new year. They had designer Trevor

Lai create the limited-edition lunar new year jersey. After being worn

by the players during warm-ups, the jerseys were put up for auction,

where some of the proceeds from this and other lunar new year

merchandise sales were donated to the Elimin8hate campaign.

These incredible actions by groups and organizations across the

province help to honour our diverse multicultural communities and have

helped bring in the spirit of charity and kindness that is so important

in the lunar new year.

From my family, and our B.C. Liberal caucus family, to yours, I

wish you all good health, happiness, good luck and prosperity in the

Year of the Tiger.

[1:55 p.m.]

Gung hey fat choy.

Gong xi fa cai.

Foo Nin Gat Cheung.

Wan Shi Ru Yi.

Thank you. Duo Jie. Xie.

[Transliteration provided by T.

Wat.]

CATHERINE LUDGATE

N. Sharma: Today I rise to acknowledge the loss of Catherine Ludgate and send

our thoughts to her family and friends. Catherine will be remembered for

the impact she made on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people

in our province through her community leadership, her ability to ask

hard questions and commitment to advocating for disadvantaged people in

B.C. and Canada.

Her work contributed to B.C. and Canada’s first poverty reduction

strategies. She served with great integrity and commitment as chair of

the Poverty Reduction Advisory Committee, the poverty reduction advisory

forum and the Canadian Ministerial Advisory Committee on

Poverty.

Catherine worked at Vancity for 14 years, most recently as a

senior manager for community investment and economic inclusion. This is

where I had the privilege of seeing her dedication, creativity and drive

firsthand. Through her work, Catherine was persistent in pushing

government to rethink how we approach social services. It is no small

task to bring together 13 people with different backgrounds and have

them work as a cohesive unit to advise on some of the most challenging

issues our province faces.

In 2020, Catherine tragically shared with the ministry staff that

she was diagnosed with a terminal illness. But she was eager and willing

to continue chairing the committee as long as she could, because that is

who Catherine was.

For those of you who knew Catherine, I encourage you to make a

donation in Catherine’s name to the welcome centre at the Immigrant

Services Society of B.C. The centre serves over 600 people a day and

provides a variety of crucial services for vulnerable

populations.

Rest in peace, Catherine. Your impact on the lives of British

Columbians will be felt for years to come.

BURIAL SITE OF INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

AT WILLIAMS LAKE

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

L. Doerkson: Today I rise with a heavy heart as I recognize a significant and

somber discovery in my community.

Just a few weeks ago the Williams Lake First Nation

an­nounced the results from the first phase of their investigation

of the lands surrounding the site of the former St. Joseph’s Mission

Residential School. Tragically, their work uncovered evidence of 93

potential burial sites, each representing lives that were cut

short.

It was an emotional moment to be present in the gymnasium at the

Williams Lake First Nation as they made their announcement, surrounded

by survivors of the St. Joseph Mission and their families. I heard the

stories of what generations of students had to endure every single day

at the mission, further examples of the terrible legacy of residential

schools and the pain and the loss they have caused for Indigenous people

across our country.

As leaders in British Columbia, we cannot hide from or ignore this

dark legacy. Instead, we must all take action and work together toward a

better future. We cannot let the injustice that allowed this to happen

in the first place continue. That continues to impact generations of

Indigenous families in so many ways. In this chamber, we must reaffirm

our steadfast commitment to meaningful reconciliation, and as a society,

we must genuinely listen to survivors and their families better than we

have ever listened before.

Importantly, we can never forget the children who lost their

lives. Each death is an irreplaceable loss, the loss of a person who was

loved, who mattered, who deserved a long, free and equal life but had it

taken from them.

BROOKSWOOD SECONDARY

SCHOOL

STUDENTS

A. Mercier: I recently had the pleasure, in December, of attending a few

Brookswood Secondary School classes in my constituency of Langley,

notably Katie Glover’s and Katie Tressel’s grades 10, 11 and 12

political studies, social studies and economics classes.

I will confess that I made a rookie mistake that I don’t think

would befall any senior member of this House. I was trying to talk to

these students about getting involved in politics and getting involved

on the issues you care about, irrespective of the party or where you

stand. I found myself asking them: how old do you guys think I

am?

[2:00 p.m.]

I realized my error when the first student, who I think was a

grade 10, shouted out: “Sixty.” Then I got a chorus of guesses around

that age mark. It quickly dawned on me that maybe I wasn’t asking the

right question. I’m 36, for the record. I don’t even have grandchildren.

I think I made my point.

They asked some great questions about hospital staffing and

nursing, about taxes on vaping. There was a whole discussion between two

of the students about nuclear power. I’m not sure how applicable that is

to the province of British Columbia, but they were interested. ICBC and

gas prices, housing. The excitement around SkyTrain to Langley with

young people in Langley is palpable. We had probably a half-hour

conversation about everything to do with SkyTrain.

I also got asked the same question I always get asked when I speak

to young people. I don’t know why I get asked this. I think it’s out of

a sense of irony. What hair product do I use? I’ll cut the suspense. I

buy whatever is on sale at Shoppers. I was also asked what my biggest

regret is, and I still don’t know if I have an answer to

that.

I just want to give a shoutout to the kids at Brookswood and

especially to the teachers, Katie Glover and Katie Tres­sel,

because they’re doing something right.

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

C. Oakes: Today I rise to lend my voice toward an important push for

diversity, inclusion and awareness. I’m speaking of Black History

Month.

This February is an important opportunity to honour and recognize

the significant accomplishments and contributions to our province by the

people of African descent. Throughout our history, Black Canadians have

played vital roles in building our province and country, all while

facing racism and discrimination in their daily lives.

I believe it is our collective responsibility to raise Black

voices and to learn Black stories, stories like that of Eleanor Collins,

Vancouver’s first lady of jazz. She was the first Canadian woman to have

her own national television show, CBC TV’s The Eleanor Show .

She championed the values of equality and acceptance and is considered a

civic leader and pioneer in the development of British Columbia’s music

industry.

Importantly for this chamber, the hon. Rosemary Brown was the

first Black woman to be elected to a provincial legislature in Canada.

Representing the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, she was elected as a

member to sit in this chamber in 1972. During her 14 years as an MLA,

Brown introduced legislation to remove sexism and racism from the B.C.

education curriculum, to reduce discrimination based on gender or

marital status and to advance human rights in British

Columbia.

This year’s theme is “February and forever,” celebrating Black

history today and every day. It is with that focus we continue to

recognize and celebrate Black Canadians.

It’s equally significant that not just in this month we continue

to advocate and work together to ensure that all people who call this

land home, regardless of their background or ethnicity, have equal

opportunities to succeed right here in British Columbia.

Ministerial Statements

CHIEF DELGAMUUKW

Hon. N. Cullen: It is my distinct honour and privilege today to rise to pay

tribute to a truly great man. Earl Muldon, who long held the hereditary

name of Delgamuukw, passed away on January 3 at the age of 85, at his

home in Hazelton in Gitxsan territory.

As I sat with my boys on a cold northern highway to watch the

funeral procession go by, I struggled to explain to them the importance

that this man held for so many people. Earl was a legendary artist,

leader and Indigenous rights activist, inspiring some of the greatest

changes to Canadian and international law with respect to Indigenous

rights and title. He was a generous and magnificent story­teller

and keeper of Gitxsan tradition.

I had the incredible privilege of sitting and listening to many of

those stories at feasts and at his home. He was humble, charitable and

courageous.

[2:05 p.m.]

He was born in Kispiox in 1936 and worked as a logger with his

father, but he eventually turned to a life as an artist and became a

world-renowned carver. Many of his works you can see around our province

and around the world.

The high name of Delgamuukw of Wilp Delgamuukw was bestowed on

Earl on April 12 in 1990, following in the footsteps of the late Albert

Tait and his brother Kenny. When he stood with Gisday’wa, the late

Alfred Joseph of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, in the landmark case of

Delgamuukw v. the Queen , he won not only a historic victory

for the Gitxsan and all Indigenous people but, many would argue, for all

people of this province and country.

Earl is survived by his remarkable wife of 63 years, Shirley; his

children Cheryl, Brian, Charlie and Teri; and his many grandchildren and

great-grandchildren. Earl Muldon was loved and admired by many, and

many, many more that he never knew or met.

On behalf of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, our government and this entire Legislature, I would like

to extend our deepest condolences to his family and his nation and

appreciation for an incredible life well lived.

M. Lee: I also rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to

Chief Delgamuukw.

On January 3, 2022, our nation lost a very important individual

who played a critical role in helping to transform Canada’s legal

system.

Chief Delgamuukw was a longtime Gitxsan Hereditary Chief who was

influential in confirming Aboriginal rights and title in British

Columbia. His courage and resilience changed the way Canadians

understand Indigenous rights, and his work has paved the way for

generations in protecting their rights.

As the member opposite has said, Chief Delgamuukw was a renowned

carver and artist who preserved and sought to preserve Gitxsan form and

culture.

I must say, on a personal note, that I understand Earl Muldon was

studying at university in the 1950s in Vancouver, and the reason why he

left was the intense forms of racism that he experienced personally. My

own father, when he came from Hong Kong in 1953, also experienced, like

many others, forms of racism. Chief Delgamuukw went back and formed the

Gitxsan School of Art, where he passed on the culture, the art, the

carving to generations, to the children and grandchildren to

come.

What he was anchored on in terms of the importance of culture to

his people forms the foundation, of course, for that landmark case. When

I became a lawyer in 1997, two months later the Supreme Court of Canada

issued its decision — the importance of oral history, tradition and

culture for Indigenous peoples, the importance of understanding how that

is shaping their traditional lands and rights and title.

I know his artistic works, of course, are found all over British

Columbia, including on the doors of the Museum of Anthropology at UBC,

which we all come to see. His accomplishments and dedication to his

community will truly be felt for many generations yet to

come.

On behalf of the official opposition, we raise our hands to Chief

Delgamuukw and offer our condolences to his family, clan and his people.

We wish Chief Delgamuukw a light heart on his new journey.

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

A. Olsen: HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM , Mr.

Speaker.

I’d like to thank the minister of state for his comments and the

member for Vancouver-Langara for his comments as well.

Today I stand to pay tribute and acknowledge the life and

accomplishments of the Gitxsan late Hereditary Chief Delgamuukw, also

known as Earl Muldon.

The late Chief Delgamuukw was a world-famous Gitxsan artist who

received a B.C. lifetime achievement award for Aboriginal art in 2009

and was appointed to the Order of Canada in 2010.

[2:10 p.m.]

That name, Delgamuukw, will be familiar to Canadians because it is

also the name of that landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1997

known as the Delga­muukw-Gisday’wa case that was to affirm

Aboriginal title in British Columbia.

In addition, this decision also affirmed the use of oral testimony

of Indigenous leaders, a form of evidence that is very well known to me,

as it was used by my father and his legal team in the early 2000s to

successfully defend his rights against this provincial government — also

at the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court found that the

Aboriginal title encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation

of the land.

I raise my hands in gratitude to Chief Delgamuukw, Chief Gisday’wa

and all the Hereditary Chiefs of the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en for their

commitment to standing up to the injustices that are at the core of

these Crown governments.

For 13 years, Chief Delgamuukw, Chief Gisday’wa and their fellow

Hereditary Chiefs fought for the jurisdiction of their territories in

northwest British Columbia. They originally launched their case in 1984,

and in 1991, they heard the ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court, which

stated that while First Nations might have had rights, they were legally

extinguished when British Columbia joined Canada in 1871.

I and many Indigenous peoples in British Columbia are grateful to

Chief Delgamuukw for not being dissuaded by the gross and racist

treatment of our B.C. court. A report I read outlined Chief Justice

McEachern, who described the pre-contact life of the Gitxsan and

Wet’suwet’en as “nasty, brutish and short,” while ignoring Indigenous

systems of governance that existed on the land since time immemorial and

devaluing Indigenous cultures by saying: “They more likely acted as they

did because of survival instincts.”

Despite these awful, racist comments and this unjust treatment,

Chief Delgamuukw continued to demand jus­tice for his people. As a

result, all Indigenous people, including the

W̱SÁNEĆ, where I’m from, now know

that Aboriginal title has not been extinguished. It exists. It is

meaningful. Oral testimony is legitimate. Indigenous rights include land

but also the economic value that can be derived from the

land.

Here we stand in this chamber, 25 years later from that ruling,

celebrating and honouring the memory of a man who honourably carried

that name, Delgamuukw, and all the responsibilities that come associated

with carrying a name such as that.

I must ask the question. I must ask the question now. Has this

institution honoured that work over this 25 years? In some respects, I

think the answer is yes. We have a new law, the Declaration Act, which

can fundamentally change the Indigenous-Crown relationship, and that

change is happening slowly.

However, this government continues to use instruments entrenched

in that old thinking, the thinking that was used by the B.C. court —

arguments such as terra nullius and the doctrine of discovery —

and is still used by legal teams representing this institution where we

celebrate Chief Delgamuukw, still using those tools to this day. There

continues to be conflict on the land based in the northwest of British

Columbia. The protests and armed police enforcement continue to this

day, even though ministers of this Crown government were contracted to

meaningfully dispense that 25-year-old decision.

In the spirit of the struggle, I’m confident that Chiefs

Delgamuukw and Gisday’wa, the late Chiefs Delgamuukw and Gisday’wa, and

their colleagues did not withstand the racism and abuse fighting for

decades in court for these rights to be acknowledged by this Crown

government so that 25 years later the same government — with some of the

same faces, just in different seats at the table — will still be

struggling to uphold the basic findings of the work that Chief

Delgamuukw, Chief Gisday’wa and their fellow Hereditary Chiefs fought so

hard for.

I appreciate this moment and this opportunity to highlight the

incredible courage and power of Chief Delga­muukw, and I raise my

hands in gratitude for the courage and dedication that he

showed.

Our thoughts of the B.C. Green caucus and prayers re­main

for strength to the family of Chief Delgamuukw.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

[2:15 p.m.]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO OVERDOSE

DEATHS

S. Bond: Well, it is another devastating, heartbreaking day in British

Columbia. The overdose numbers that were released today by the coroner

confirm that 2,224 people lost their lives last year alone, more than

six people every single day. That is a 25 percent increase over the

previous year.

Every month the numbers get worse and worse and worse, and there

is no real action to halt the deaths. Chief coroner Lisa Lapointe says:

“Our province is in a worse place than it has ever been.”

Will the minister admit today that she has utterly failed in the

primary goal of saving lives in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I, too, want to acknowledge with sorrow the findings of the

coroner and the loss of over 2,000 British Columbians to a toxic drug

supply. We have been discussing this issue in this Legislature for

coming on half a decade and more.

On both sides of this House, there is a sense of loss of people in

our community who have succumbed to addictions and have been taken down

by a drug supply that is more toxic today than it has ever been — also

part and parcel of the findings of the coroner.

Although there is much more work to do, I think it’s also

important to acknowledge that all of us, collectively, have been passing

legislation in this House, working to ensure that budgets are increased,

year over year — $500 million last year — so that we can double the

number of treatment beds for youth and we can put over 195 treatment

beds for adults in place as well as building on the work that has been

going on since the advent of our first public health crisis, that of a

toxic drug supply.

What startles me — and I think what we’ve all been grappling with,

wherever we sit, whoever we represent — is that the vast majority of

fatalities have been males between the ages of 30 and 59. There is a

perception — and all of us know that this isn’t correct — that this is a

Vancouver problem, a part of Vancouver problem. It is not. It is a

British Columbia problem. It is a national problem.

What we have been trying to do — and in many times, with the

assistance of members on the other side — is to make appeals to the

federal government so that they can build on the safe supply work that

we have done here to increase to some 12,000 citizens that are being

able to access safe supply to meet the demand, which is estimated by

some to be 50,000 and others to be 150,000 people who require access to

that safe drug supply.

I also want to, while I’m on my feet — and I think there will be

unanimity to this — just condemn those who prey on the vulnerabilities

of others, those who are making a fortune out of bringing fentanyl and

other toxic drugs into our system with no regard whatsoever for the

consequences of that action.

On the second of February, the RCMP announced a bust in Coquitlam

— five people charged. The RCMP seized not just firearms and over $1

million in cash but three kilograms of fentanyl. We know a grain of

fentanyl can kill you, and someone in British Columbia thought it was

okay to allow these people to conduct their business.

We will not say anything today other than we applaud the work of

those on the front lines who are resuscitating people with those tools

we do have and working to make sure that we get a destigmatized system

in place here that’s part and parcel of decriminalization as well as a

safe drug supply. We also have to track down those predators in our

society that are killing people every day because they don’t give a

darn. I know everyone in this place does.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental

question.

S. Bond: I don’t think there’s a single person in this chamber that would

disagree that people on the front lines are working hard and doing their

part every single day. But it’s time for this government and this

Premier to step up and do their part.

Six people every day are dying in our province.

I’m heartened to hear the Premier speak about working

collectively, because numerous times the leader of the Green Party and

the Leader of the Official Opposition have asked this Premier to do the

right thing — to bring the Health Committee back to do its work across

party lines. We continue to ask for that today.

[2:20 p.m.]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is stubbornly

refused. Back in 2017, this Premier said: “Think of wildfires. We never

wait to check the budget before putting the fires out. We get at it

right away.” Yet month after month after month here in British Columbia,

record numbers of people dying, and the ministry responsible for working

on that program has a budget smaller than the Premier’s

office.

The chief coroner puts it simply: “It’s not a lack of desire or

motivation on the backs of the people who are using. It’s just that

there are no services. The services are so very, very

limited.”

Will the Premier stand up today and make a commitment to British

Columbians that he will bring the parties to the table to work together

and finally begin to try to mitigate the devastating stories that we

hear month after month?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for raising

these important issues.

It is important to know that when the opposition says the office

budget for Minister X or Y is bigger than someone else’s, it completely

disregards the fact that the services that she speaks of, that have been

increased year over year, are funded through health authorities, with

$500 million more going into mental health and addictions work over the

past five years, putting in place an innovation that did not exist

before we arrived — that is, having complex care housing for those who

are clearly not getting the services that the member speaks

to.

We need to make sure we’re building the tools so that front-line

workers who have been struck by COVID and the challenges that that

entails, meaning that people are separate from each other, oftentimes

dying alone — again, a finding by the coroner.

There has not been one fatality in a harm reduction facility.

That’s part and parcel of the model that I think we all support — making

sure we’re protecting people when they’re most vulnerable, making sure

that the supply of drugs that they are accessing is safe. We’re working

on that, we’ll continue to work on that, and I know we’ll have the

support of the Leader of the Opposition.

T. Halford: Six people a day. A death rate that has doub­led since 2016.

The minister’s response always seems to be the same. We need to do

better. Today the chief coroner says: “An abject and very costly

failure.”

These are people’s lives, and they need action now. They needed it

in 2021. They needed it in 2020. The coroner says this. She said this

last year: “The fact that we haven’t seen a coordinated response to, in

a very big way, reduce these numbers of deaths is just sad. It’s

heartbreaking.”

To the minister, how can she defend this catastrophic failure that

the coroner continues to outline month after month?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The devastating losses across British Columbia are felt by those

on the front line, by the families, by our government, by our caucus.

That the increasingly toxic drug supply, particularly exacerbated by the

effects of the pandemic, has led to such a tragically and terribly

increased loss of life is something that spurs our work every day and

something that strengthens our resolve to continue to invest more,

continue to build more.

I’ll remind the member opposite that in 2017, the public health

emergency was already underway, but there was not a continuum of care.

This has been widely identified. We have been working simultaneously as

a health care system and as a government to both fight the public health

emergency and build that system of care.

Although I agree with the member’s characterization of the

unacceptable loss of life, and clearly we have to do more, I do not

agree in any way that no steps have been taken. British Columbia has

already added several hundred new addictions treatment beds, and we are

building several hundred more. We have already added 20 youth treatment

beds just in the year 2020 and another 30 in the year 2021, with more to

come.

[2:25 p.m.]

Integrated child and youth teams coming across the province. From

one supervised consumption site in 2016 to 42 today. Sixteen of those

inhalation sites we’re innovating across the continuum.

We are determined to do more. Clearly, more is needed to be done.

But British Columbia, as a province, and peo­ple on the front line

are tackling this crisis from every angle, from a multitude of

approaches across the continuum, both prevention and treatment, and

we’re determined to do more.

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

T. Halford: It’s simply not good enough. It isn’t 2017; it’s 2022. This

minister and this government have had over four years to put things in

place that will combat this crisis.

When it comes to recovery, it’s a failure. It’s a failure to

provide the support that this province needs. No one should be forced to

choose between recovery and paying their rent. No one should be forced

to provide costs for counselling and putting food on their table for

their family.

The coroner says: “Greater access to evidence-based treatment and

recovery programs is also urgently need­ed. People are dying on

waiting lists. There are barriers everywhere.”

Will this minister today get up in this House and commit to take

the necessary steps to make sure that individuals that are struggling,

that are fighting addiction have access to recovery, have access to

treatment in real time so we do not have people waiting, dying on

wait-lists, so we don’t have moms and fathers choosing whether or not

they are going to remortgage their house to provide treatment for their

child? Can this minister make that commitment today — that this

government will support affordable recovery?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The expansion of addiction and recovery treatment beds in British

Columbia is unprecedented, and more is needed. The addition of another

$132 million that we announced this fall to fill gaps in the treatment

recovery system, meeting people where they are in their recovery

journey, whether it’s care before detox, whether it’s the step in

between detox and treatment where people often fall through the cracks,

whether it’s after leaving treatment, having the post-recovery

counselling and community support.

People on the front line, people with lived experience, have told

us these are the gaps in the continuum of care that we are building up

every day.

I agree with the member. More needs to be done. That’s why we have

already funded it in last year’s budget. That’s why we are working every

day to implement that budget and to build out that continuum of

care.

More needs to be done. There is no question. The loss of life is

testament to that. Our government’s commitment to continue to build out

that system of health care response to the overdose crisis continues in

every way.

Anybody listening, I want you to know that every week we are

adding new supports. In the weeks and months ahead, you will see

announcements again and again in every part of the province, building

that system of care that should have been in place to care for people

and to finally bring an end to this overdose crisis.

COVID-19 TRANSMISSION AND

FACE MASKS IN HEALTH CARE

FACILITIES

S. Furstenau: I’m going to follow the lead of the Canadian women’s hockey team

and keep my N95 mask on for these proceedings.

I want to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition. On

behalf of our caucus, we are very happy to see the Premier back and well

and doing his job.

Thank you very much, Premier, for your strength. We are very happy

to see you well again.

More than ever, we need governments that the public feel confident

about, and I’m afraid that we’re not there. People are confused by

health policies. They’re confused by what is guiding directions, what

the outcomes are trying to be achieved, how we are measuring

success.

[2:30 p.m.]

We have two devastating health emergencies in B.C. right now, and

we need this more than ever. To restore that crucial confidence,

governments have to be able to acknowledge mistakes and be willing to

improve. They need to explain what is informing their decisions and how

they are transparently measuring the outcomes of their

policies.

Right now across B.C., patients, health care workers, teachers and

others are not being provided a critical tool to protect themselves

against an airborne virus, an N95 mask. Nurses in Fraser Health have

filed a human rights complaint against their employer for denying them

access to N95s in their workplace.

I commend the Premier and, by my count, about a dozen members of

the government caucus for protecting themselves and others and wearing

an N95 mask.

My question is to the Premier. Does he recognize and acknowledge

that COVID-19 is an airborne virus?

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the COVID-19 pandemic — and the member will know

this — in British Columbia, our efforts in this area and in all others

have been guided by the science and guided by an outstanding team of

public health leaders led by Dr. Bonnie Henry, an internationally

regarded expert in these areas. Her position in B.C. is enshrined in

statute to provide independent advice to the government.

With respect to mask-wearing in B.C., the strength of that

approach has been, over the course of the pandemic, to adapt to the

science and the circumstances, something Dr. Henry has consistently done

— and why, overwhelmingly in B.C., people have supported that effort.

They know it’s based on the evidence, and they know it’s based on the

best counsel and will continue to be.

With respect to PPEs in general and N95 masks in particular, part

of my task has been to ensure, with the health care system, that people

have the masks in the health care system that are required, where

they’re required, to protect themselves and to protect their patients.

That has hap­pened. We built an inventory, for example, in the

health care system, of 7.7 million N95 masks to do so.

Our work and our guidance will continue to be based, as they have

been from the beginning, on the advice of public health professionals,

on Dr. Henry and her team, an internationally regarded group of

experts.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister. However, he invokes “internationally

regarded….”

The WHO has acknowledged that COVID is airborne. The Canadian

Public Health Agency has acknowledged that COVID is airborne and has

recommended that people wear N95 masks. We are internationally regarded,

at this moment, as being out of line with a lot of the consensus around

airborne transmission.

People are being told they cannot wear their own N95 masks into

health facilities in this province. Yesterday the B.C. Children’s

Hospital was tweeting that N95 is not an airborne virus…. This is on top

of many statements being made by public health authorities in this

province, doubling down on droplet transmission of this

virus.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. Why will he not

stand up and acknowledge that this is an airborne virus and the best

protection that people can have…? In this room, 100 percent of people

are vaccinated, and we are all wearing masks, doing the right thing to

reduce transmission of this virus. We need the leadership to recognize

it’s time to acknowledge this is an airborne virus.

Hon. A. Dix: Dr. Henry and I — in particular, Dr. Henry but also Dr. Gustafson

and our teams of experts at the BCCDC — have briefed on the question of

transmission repeatedly over the last two years, including on this

precise issue of transmission. We’ve put in place a set of protections

for people, layers of protection that allow them to be as safe as

possible in the context of a global pandemic.

[2:35 p.m.]

The member talks about international comparisons. Well, an

important international comparison is the fact that British Columbia —

this isn’t Dr. Henry; it’s not me; it’s not the Premier; it’s not the

government; it’s all of us — has one of the highest levels of

vaccination in the world, here in British Columbia, one of the highest

levels of compliance with public health guidance. That is, I think,

pretty significant.

We have — and this is our success, all the members of the

Legislature, all the people of B.C. — one of the lowest levels of

mortality in comparable jurisdictions anywhere in the world. That’s

because Dr. Henry is giving clear advice based on the evidence, and I

think the people of B.C., to an enormous degree, have followed and

supported that effort because they want to keep each other safe as

well.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

K. Kirkpatrick: When we were last in this House, we raised story after story about

parents of neurodiverse children who were anxious, angry, upset about

the NDP clawback of autism funding. Months later those parents have

continued…. In fact, they were on the Legislature lawn earlier today and

in the gallery today to send a message to this government.

Monica Nunez from Langford says: “As a parent of a child with

autism, I am not only infuriated, but I am scared for my child’s future.

If government truly wants to help all children, they will reconsider the

move to eliminate autism funding.”

Will the minister today listen to Monica and the other parents

that are in the gallery here and reverse this heartless

clawback?

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

Thank you to the parents for being here today as well.

For many years, my ministry has been hearing from families that

their children have been left behind. There’s a patchwork of programs

that are available for some of the community of children and youth with

support needs.

We did consultation in 2019 with over 1,500 individuals. Just in

the month of December last year alone, we engaged with about 850

families as well. It is important to listen to families. We are actively

doing that. The next sessions of engagement with families start on

February 28.

We’re committed to listening to families and to making this

transformation as successful as it can possibly be for the children and

youth in our province. We are committed to working with families to make

it right and to make sure that all children and youth receive the

services for their unique needs as early as possible.

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

K. Kirkpatrick: Groundhog Day was last week, but I feel that it is today. We

continue to get the same answer to different questions, and it’s never a

real answer. The NDP’s cold-hearted clawback affects all neurodiverse

children. The minister is ignoring this broad coalition opposed to her

clawback. She is ignoring the parents in the gallery today. She’s even

ignoring her friends, her political allies.

The president of the BCTF said this morning: “It’s heartbreaking

to think that government would knowingly subject disabled students to

significant emotional, physical and psychological distress. It’s time

for government to listen.”

Will the minister listen to parents, listen to the BCTF and stop

the clawback?

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

It is very important to listen to people with expertise and with

experience and with knowledge, and for many years, the ministry has been

listening.

Interjections.

[2:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: The ministry has been listening to families and to advocates and

to very experienced service providers as well. The community of children

and youth with support needs is diverse. So are the people who serve

them as well. We need to listen to them and to be working very closely

with them, which is what we are doing.

Just in December of last year, we had engagement sessions with

over 2,000 people from families and from service providers. We’re

continuing that engagement as we implement this really important

transformation. We’ve heard from too many families that their kids are

getting left behind. We have received several reports from the

Representative for Children and Youth, the independent representative

for children, telling us that we need to move to a needs-based system,

and that is what we’re doing.

There was an all-party select standing committee of this

Legislative Assembly that wrote a recommendation that we should be

moving to a system of needs-based services. What that means is that

children get supports…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: …when they need them. Children need supports as early as possible,

not locked behind a diagnosis, in order to have a successful

developmental path.

P. Milobar: It’s very clearly the minister that is not lis­tening and

failing to communicate with these parents, failing to talk with them and

failing to engage with them in any way. In fact, this is likely the

closest most of these parents will ever get to actually feeling like

they’ve had any discussion or communication with this

minister.

The minister’s false attempt at division is disrespectful to the

broad coalition of neurodiverse children and their families who are

speaking out against her decision. Absolutely nobody recommended clawing

back individualized funding, but that is what this NDP government has

chosen to do.

The message, from even their political allies like the BCTF, is

clear: “Stop the planned clawback of individual funding for children

with autism. Government must stop with the political pandering and do

what’s right for the kids.”

Again, will the minister do what is right and stop the

clawback?

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

I have heard countless stories from families. I hear from families

who tell me that even if their child has a diagnosis and they have

access to individualized funding, there are many families that aren’t

able to find services to be able to support their child.

Many other families are burnt out. They don’t want to be a case

manager for their children. They want to be able to be a parent, and

they want to be supported in having services delivered and available and

supports available for their children as early as possible.

Families have been asking for an increase in respite, and our

government has increased respite funding. Families of children with

complex needs have told me just how stressed and strained they are

because of a lack of support based on need and because the current

system is so fragmented. And families who live in remote communities

find it really difficult to access services.

We’re working on building a system that will ensure that all

families and their children will receive the services that their

children need based on needs. The services will match the needs.

Families and children will set goals together, and then they’ll get the

supports to be able to achieve those…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer.

Hon. M. Dean: …goals and continue to receive those services. We are building a

system that will reach into all parts of the province, deliver those

services that children need as early as possible.

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

P. Milobar: Well, the minister just seemed to describe the system she’s trying

to claw back and tear apart, actually.

Let’s hear from someone else that isn’t sure the minister has been

listening to her. Noelle Smith from Campbell River was diagnosed with

autism as a two-year-old and has overcome the trauma and stigma of being

told that she would never graduate. Not only did Noelle graduate with

top grades, but she is now a behavioural interventionist, supporting

herself and working to help others, as a result of the individualized

autism funding that this minister is now so cruelly clawing

back.

[2:45 p.m.]

Noelle has this question for the minister: “Why is it okay to

remove me and other fellow workers from a child and youth who trusts

us?”

Will the minister show Noelle the respect she deserves and answer

Noelle’s direct question?

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

Of course, this is a really important transformation, to make sure

that we get the services that are needed for families in British

Columbia and get the services to them and to their children as soon as

possible.

We’re engaging with families. We want to hear from families about

how they envision their children being served in the new system, how we

can work in partnership with them, co-create that package of services,

putting the child and youth at the centre and working with the circle of

care that’s so important to that child and youth, making sure that

there’s a package of services that are there to meet the needs of that

child.

We’re working with families and listening to families. We’re

working with service providers, listening to service providers and

advocates in the community as well. We’re going to continue those

conversations to make sure that all children in British Columbia get the

services that they need as soon as possible.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES

COMMITTEE

J. Routledge: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second

session of the 42nd parliament, titled Annual Review of the Budgets

of Statutory Offices , a copy of which has been deposited with

the Office of the Clerk.

I move that the report be taken as read.

Motion approved.

J. Routledge: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

J. Routledge: I move that the report be adopted. In doing so, I would like to

make some brief comments.

This report summarizes the committee’s recommendations for the

budgets of the province’s nine statutory officers. Committee members met

with each of the statutory officers last fall to review and consider

their budget proposals for the 2022-2023 fiscal year. Funding lifts for

the offices generally arose from expanded legislative mandates,

increased caseloads and inflation related to salaries and building

costs.

The committee is sensitive to the broader financial pressures

facing our province as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, devastating

wildfires and floods. We appreciate the statutory officers’ commitment

to ongoing prudent fiscal management.

The committee will continue to encourage statutory offices to

track caseload and metrics, highlight efficiencies and internal savings,

and ensure their three-year budget proposals incorporate the

inflationary costs, internal savings and anticipated needs as much as

possible. The committee is grateful to the statutory officers for their

continued dedication and work in serving all British Columbians, and we

look forward to meeting with them again in the spring.

I also want to acknowledge the staff in the Parliamentary

Committees Office who supported the committee. Thank you to Jennifer

Arril, Jonathon Hamilton, Mary Newell, Karan Riarh and Ron

Wall.

I appreciate the diligent and thoughtful work of all committee

members throughout this process and particularly recognize the Deputy

Chair, the member for Kelowna West, for his collaborative approach and

advice.

B. Stewart: Thank you to the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services.

I just wanted to add a few comments about the opportunity to work

with the member for Burnaby North and the importance of this work in

meeting with the statutory officers and the roles that they play, here

in the Legislature, to each and every one of us and to British

Columbians.

[2:50 p.m.]

The report introduced in the House today is a result of months of

work and many interviews with the various statutory officers. I’m

thankful for the thorough dialogue and discussion we had during these

meetings and the thoughtful questions from members of the committee on

all sides of the House and equally thoughtful answers from those we

interviewed. We look forward to more productive discussions in the

future, and we are planning to meet again shortly.

I have to say that the whole process of putting this report

together was an enlightening experience in which we all learned more

about the statutory offices and the important work that they do every

day, as well as the many pressures that they face, both dealing with the

COVID pandemic and the fact that there is increased, added

responsibility to many of the offices. I also look forward to their

creativity in finding savings in their roles in the service of British

Columbians.

Last and most definitely not least, I just want to say a sincere

thank-you to all the legislative staff who helped us complete this task.

Without their hard work and patience, we would not have had this report

today. I want to extend my sincerest thanks to Jennifer Arril, Karan

Riarh, Ron Wall, Jonathon Hamilton and Mary Newell.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION

ACT REVIEW

COMMITTEE

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

to Review the Personal Information Protection Act for the second session

of the 42nd parliament, entitled Modernizing British Columbia’s

Private Sector Privacy Law , a copy of which has been deposited

with the Office of the Clerk.

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

Mr. Speaker: The question is that the report be taken as read and

received.

Motion approved.

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

report.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

M. Elmore: In moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make some brief

comments. The Personal Information Protection Act came into force in

2004. It aims to balance the protection of individual privacy with the

need of private sector and non-profit organizations to collect, use and

disclose personal information responsibly in order to provide services

and conduct business. The act also gives individuals the right to access

their personal information and to ask that their personal information be

corrected.

As we all know, new technologies have transformed the economy as

well as the delivery of many services we rely on in our daily life.

British Columbians’ personal information is now being collected and used

in new ways, and this raises questions about the protection of their

information.

Over the past two years, the committee met with stakeholders and

experts who provided input on how the act is working and areas where it

could be improved. They were clear that significant changes to the

Personal Information Protection Act are needed. The committee’s report

makes 34 recommendations to modernize the act, including aligning it

with provincial, federal and international privacy legislation and

strengthening safeguards to reflect the current technological

landscape.

I’d like to express the committee’s sincere appreciation to

everyone who took the time to provide us with input. I’d also like to

thank all committee members, including the MLAs for Surrey-Guildford,

Port Moody–Coquitlam, Richmond-Steveston, Vancouver-Quilchena and

Saanich North and the Islands, for their hard work and dedication to the

process and, in particular, the Deputy Chair, the member for

Penticton.

As well, thanks to the support and hard work from legislative

staff Susan Sourial, Lisa Hill, Jesse Gordon, Mary Newell, Stephanie

Raymond and Mai Nguyen.

D. Ashton: Many thanks to a great Chair, the member for Vancouver-Kensington

— always fair, tolerant and a very good listener.

Thank you to all the tri-party members on the committee — an

important job well done. Special thanks to the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena for his legal mind that did, on occasion, help us

come to a compromise.

A real, heartfelt thanks to the Clerk of Committees staff —

exemplary as always. This report will give the Office of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner, specifically Commissioner Michael McEvoy, lots

to work with.

[2:55 p.m.]

In closing, this act is reviewed every six years. With the

advances in technology and the use of such, I would ask that the

government keep a keen eye in case a review is required

earlier.

Again, thank you to all the members of the committee.

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

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS

FOR THURSDAY SITTING

HOURS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion. By leave, I move:

[That, for the remainder of the current Session:

1. Standing Order 2 (1) be amended to provide for the Thursday

afternoon sitting to be from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. instead of 1:30 p.m.

to 6:00 p.m.

2. Standing Order 3 be amended by striking the words “6:00 p.m. on

Thursday” and replacing them with “5:30 p.m. on Thursday”.]

Both opposition caucuses have been supplied a copy of the

motion.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Question of Privilege

A. Olsen: I rise at the first opportunity to address a question of privilege and

to provide evidence that last November the Minister of Citizens’ Services

may have intentionally misled this House. I’m asking you, Mr. Speaker, to

assess whether a prima facie breach of privilege and contempt of parliament

has occurred.

I raise this issue in this House. However, this is not the first time

that such allegations have been levelled against the Minister of Citizens’

Services with respect to the debate last fall over Bill 22, the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021.

These questions, indeed, have already been raised publicly by the

media, and if they are left unassessed, they have the very real consequences

of eroding the confidence of this institution, in this institution. British

Columbians need to know that this institution will not stand by and allow

potentially harmful behaviour, or even the accusations of that behaviour, to

be ignored.

Members of this House are aware that

chapter 17 of Parliamentary

Practice in British Columbia , fifth edition, outlines, in

section

17.4, the privileges of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This

section outlines that the Constitution Act, 1871, permits this assembly to

define our own privileges, immunities and powers. “Parliamentary privilege

allows the Legislative Assembly and its members to fulfil their

constitutional functions — to deliberate, to legislate and to hold the

government to account — without interference from the executive, judiciary

and others.”

Beginning in the 14th century, these privileges have existed to some

extent in our system of governance. Over the course of 300 years, these

privileges evolved to protect our work in these chambers, such as it is, on

behalf of our constituents. These are serious matters, and in order to

preserve the integrity and dignity of our democracy, when a prima facie

breach of privilege occurs, we members must raise them to you, Mr. Speaker,

for your ruling on whether they require further investigation.

We, as members of this House, are afforded privileges that protect our

ability to promote the best interests of our constituents within these

chambers, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom from arrest and civil

actions, and to regulate our own proceedings free from interference and

intimidation. While our individual and collective privileges can be clearly

defined, contempt of parliament is more difficult to categorize and

delineate.

Chapter 3 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice ,

third edition, 2017, covers privileges and immunities of members. In the

section defining privilege and contempt, it states:

“Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the

House and its members, either by an outside person or body or by a member of

the House, is referred to as a ‘breach of privilege’ and is punishable by

the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and

authority of parliament, which may not fall within one of the specifically

defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish as a

contempt any action which, though not a breach of specific privilege, tends

to obstruct or impede the House in its performance of its functions,

obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of

their duties….”

[3:00 p.m.]

The

section lists several potential types of contempt, including

“deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee by way of

statement, evidence or petition.”

Joseph Maingot writes in Parliamentary Immunity in Canada ,

2016: “If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a

member of parliament — i.e., any of the member’s activities that have a

connection with a proceeding in parliament — that is a matter involving

parliamentary privilege. An offence against the authority of the House

constitutes contempt.”

It is the intentional attempt to mislead the House, the interference

in our parliamentary work, that is an affront to the dignity and authority

of this parliament, this House, and the obstruction of the performance of

the function of this House that must be investigated further. Questions have

been raised publicly by elected members and members of the legislative press

gallery with respect to whether responses to questions by the Minister of

Citizens’ Services at committee stage of the debate for Bill 22, the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, amounted to an

intentional attempt to mislead this House.

If a member of the Crown intentionally misleads this House, or if

allegations are made publicly that a minister intentionally misled the

House, and it’s allowed to stand without further investigation, it

undermines and erodes the confidence of our constituents in their members

and ultimately calls into question the dignity of this

institution.

It is the Speaker’s responsibility to determine whether a prima facie

breach has occurred. Quoting from Parliamentary Practice in British

Columbia :

“Once the Speaker has come to a decision based on the evidence

presented, the Speaker’s decision is presented to the Legislative Assembly.

There are two possible outcomes: that no prima facie breach of privilege

occurred, in which case the matter is closed, or that a prima facie breach

of privilege occurred. In the latter instance, the Speaker will leave it to

the Legislative Assembly to vote on a motion to have the matter examined by

a parliamentary committee, or, more rarely, to take corrective steps

immediately.”

I have prepared a motion that I’m prepared to move, should Mr. Speaker

find a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred, referring this issue to

the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct,

Standing Orders and Private Bills for further investigation.

I take no joy in standing here today, raising this allegation in this

House. However, it is a responsibility that I accept as part of maintaining

the dignity of our democratic institution of government. The question I and

other members of this House had as the fall 2021 legislative session was

adjourned was whether the Minister of Citizens’ Services had intentionally

misled this House through the debate of Bill 22.

I was not the only one with this question. At least two articles were

written by members of the legislative press gallery raising concerns about

the conduct of the Minister of Citizens’ Services, specifically in regards

to creating the power for an application fee to be set through

regulation.

There are several instances during the debate where the Minister of

Citizens’ Services was asked about the potential for an application fee.

There are dozens of pages of exchanges between members of the opposition and

the minister. Questions about the proposed new fee arose almost immediately

in the debate that lasted until the final moments of the fall sitting of the

House. I will note that for most of the questions, the minister stated that

the clause being debated did not apply to the proposed fee, as the

legislation was only creating the power to create an application fee, while

the actual fee was set in regulation.

Starting in early November and continuing through­out the

debate, the Minister of Citizens’ Services suggested to British Columbians

that there would be more analysis and further consultation on a potential

fee. On November 1, the minister said the legislation “doesn’t outline a fee

or what the fee is or how the fee is going to work. What this legislation

does is give the government the ability to create that fee.” That fee will

be decided in regulation, going through “the analysis of what a fee should

and could look like.”

The minister continued: “At no point in this

section or anywhere

through this legislation are we going to discuss a number of what the fee

will be, because that’s set through regulation…. It will be set in

regulation at a later date.”

On November 3, the minister stated: “I think it’s important for

everyone to know that in making those regulations moving forward, that we

are listening and that we will continue to listen to British

Columbians.”

[3:05 p.m.]

To this, the member for Abbotsford West responded that the minister

was in essence saying: “We want you to grant us this power, but I refuse to

engage in a discussion about how we might use that power…. That’s

antidemocratic.”

These are the types of statements and reassurances that the minister

provided British Columbians repeat­edly through the month-long debate.

The minister consistently led British Columbians to believe that there would

be further consultation and engagement on a potential fee. As the debate

continues, the minister reinforced her message:

“I know the member wants to share his views and the concerns of British

Columbians around a potential fee, and I welcome that. Our government is

listening. I am listening. I think it’s very important to hear that feedback

on what a potential fee should be. I thank the member for his interventions

in clause 1 and in sharing that information. I thank everyone who has

written to my office to share their thoughts, because our government is

listening. That will be taken into account, and I thank you.”

All of those quotes come from debates in early November. The assembly

continued to sit and debate legislation until November 25, under the

assumption that the minister and her staff were listening to the public

feedback. These debates clearly show the Minister of Citizens’ Services

repeatedly deflecting questions about the specific fee that would be set,

and would only engage in questions about the right this bill was giving the

government to set a fee through regulation — a process only granted to her

and the executive by the passing of the bill, by the power of this

Legislative Assembly.

Members of the opposition push hard in the committee stage of the

debate to fully understand the implications of the powers we are granting to

the minister and the executive, and that is why it is so critical that the

executive does not interfere or obstruct in the privileges of the members by

not answering questions or intentionally misleading the House.

When a member of the executive of our government is questioned about

their intentions and they reassure our constituents that they will be

consulted, the members of this House must be confident that those

commitments will indeed happen.

Well, the minister may defend the earlier commitments of further

consultation as the government no doubt heard feedback all through November.

The minister continued to make commitments right up to the adjournment of

the debate of Bill 22. Just minutes before it received final approval and

royal assent, British Columbians were led to believe that there was time

following enactment to provide their input on a “potential fee that may be

set through regulation.”

The minister stated in the final minutes of that debate on the final

day: “As I’ve said before, and as I know the member knows I’m going to

answer, the legislation before us today gives the ability to create the fee.

The details of the regulation are through the regulation process, which is

separate from the legislation. But the member raises good points, and as

I’ve said to the member all throughout this legislation, we are listening,

and I thank the member for raising the concern.”

Now, the assembly adjourned shortly after 5 p.m. on November 25. On

November 26, an order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council was published

setting a new freedom-of-information application fee at $10. As Rob Shaw, a

member of the press gallery, reported on Twitter, still there: “Update. I’m

told the minister signed cabinet order setting FOI fee on Thursday, November

25, shortly after the bill passed the Legislature, not Friday, as OIC is

dated. This was not done in normal cabinet meeting but in what is called a

corridor order by a minister using her specific powers.”

It is at this point where this alleged breach of privilege occurs. The

minister repeated time and again that she was listening and would continue

to listen right up to the end of the debate on the last day of session, then

somehow had an order-in-council ready to go with an amount already

determined and reportedly signed shortly after the assem­bly

adjourned.

The minister’s statements that she was listening and would continue to

listen led this Legislative Assembly and the people we represent to believe

that there was time to provide feedback and that perhaps even the minister

would be announcing a process to gather more feedback. However, it appears

the decision had already been made and the documents printed, ready for

signing.

[3:10 p.m.]

Seeing the operation of government over the last five years, it’s

difficult to believe that as the minister was standing and repeating the

message on the final day of debate, the plan was not already in place to

institute the fee immediately following the adjournment of

debate.

On November 30, Rob Shaw published the

article “De­liberate

Misdirection” in The Orca . He writes:

“You’re not allowed to outright lie in the B.C. Legislature. But you

can, it seems, get away with misleading it, lying by omission and flagrantly

thumbing your nose at the institution. At least that’s what” the Minister of

Citizens’ Services “pulled off in the final few days of the fall session of

the Legislature as she shepherded her contentious freedom-of-information

changes through the House.”

The minister “spent days insisting that even though her bill created new

application fees for public information requests, she couldn’t discuss what

those fees might be, because they’d be set later by cabinet regulation, an

entirely separate ‘process.’”

Shaw continues:

The minister “repeated variations of this line dozens of times over days

of debate. A process. A listening exercise. A solicitation for feedback from

any and all concerned.

“Except it was a sham.”

As the minister “threw up a smokescreen over the process on November 25,

the government had already settled on the fee behind the scenes.

“There would be no new listening.

“The bill passed the Legislature at 5:15 p.m. Within a few hours, that

very night,” the minister “signed the regulation setting the new application

fee at $10.

“That ‘process’ raises questions. Are you lying to the Legislature when

you say you can’t discuss something because you haven’t made up your mind,

but then your staff have already secretly printed off the order on that very

issue and are waiting for you to get back to your office to sign it into law

before grabbing a late dinner?

“If it’s not a lie, it comes awfully close.”

On November 29, 2021, Vaughn Palmer published an

article in the

Vancouver Sun , entitled “B.C.’s Minister of Misinformation

Strikes Again.” He writes:

“‘The details of the legislation are through the regulation process,

which is separate from the legislation. But I am listening and will consider

these concerns as part of the process,’” quoting the minister.

That was “of a piece with what” the minister “has been saying for weeks,

every time the B.C. Liberals asked about the plan to charge the public a fee

to apply for information that rightly belongs to the public in the first

place.

“She’s refused to answer on the incredible grounds that the legislation

merely creates the power to charge a fee. The fee itself will be set by

cabinet regulation after the fact.

“‘The fee is something I cannot discuss here,’” the minister

“unabashedly declared at one point. ‘At no point anywhere in this

legislation are we going to discuss a number of what the fee will be,

because it’s set through regulation.’

“All along she maintained that she was listening and that there would be

more listening to come before the fee was decided.”

The minister’s “last pledge to listen was delivered in the House shortly

after 4 p.m. Thursday.

“Moments later further discussion of Bill 22 was gavelled to an end,

under a time allocation motion passed by the New Democrats earlier in the

week to expedite passage of their legislative agenda.

“An hour later the remaining business was wrapped up by similar means,

and the bills were given royal assent. Just after 5 p.m., the House

adjourned until next February.

“Later that evening” the minister, “joined by cabinet colleague” the

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, “signed a cabinet order

approving the fee of $10.

“That was mere hours after insinuating, as she had done for weeks, that

the fee was still subject to a listening exercise to be resolved by” the

minister and the minister’s cabinet colleagues “at a later date.

“Instead, the decision was already made before the House

adjourned.

“There was no cabinet meeting Thursday evening, and” the minister “was

on record as recommending a fee in the range of $25.

“No way would such an obedient functionary as the minister have decided

to lower it to $10 on her own say-so.

“So that, too, was a piece, with the evasions and obfuscations, that

made her the de facto minister of misinformation during the fall

session.”

As this House adjourned last fall, the frustration in the opposition,

the media and the public was palpable. In ad­dition to the debate on

the contentious proposed amendments to Bill 22, the government introduced

two large bills with dramatic changes to forestry legislation.

[3:15 p.m.]

Anyone who has been around these chambers for any amount of time knew

that there was little chance that these laws would have the deserved,

detailed democratic debate. Indeed, the government used time allocation to

limit the debate so they could complete their legislative agenda by their

own self-imposed deadline.

The new official opposition House Leader was quoted in Shaw’s

article

at the time, saying: “At the best, the minister misled the House. At worst,

she’s outright intentionally misled the House. What’s particularly galling

is that the minister looks into the cameras and says there’s going to be

more discussion on a fee question, there’s going to be more engagement, and

there will be consultation.”

These are, indeed, strong words spoken in this House. They’re strong

words spoken outside this House — strong words written by respected members

of our press gallery and published in respected publications in this

province for all to read. This, the public record, must be

addressed.

Maintaining the public confidence in their institution of government

relies on the members of the executive not interfering or obstructing in the

work of members in holding government accountable and that all our work

protects the dignity and integrity of this House. When the members of the

press gallery of this Legislature write such articles about the behaviour of

a member of our executive, articles that accurately reflect the feeling that

I and other members of the opposition, whose duty it is to hold those

members accountable…. The question must be asked of the Speaker whether a

breach of privilege has occurred.

As outlined in David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New

Zealand , third edition, Wellington, Dunmore, 2005:

“In appearing before the committee on the matter, the Clerk of the House

referred to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand , where it is

stated that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged

that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: (1) it

must be proven that the statement is misleading; (2) it must be established

that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was

incorrect; and (3) that in making the statement, the member intended to

mislead the House.”

As has been shown in the evidence produced here, the minister and

cabinet were not continuing to listen to the feedback in those final moments

of the debate. The decision was not brought before cabinet following the

bill receiving royal assent. The decision had already been made. So when the

minister stood in those final moments, reassuring the members of this

parliament that the government was listening, the minister had to know that

that was incorrect and that her ministry had already drafted, or was in the

process of drafting, an order-in-council. As such, when the minister made

the statement in this chamber, was it to intentionally mislead this

House?

Majority governments wield exceptional power in this institution. They

must, however, remember that each one of us is elected to represent our

constituents, and the privileges earned over generations by our predecessors

must be maintained. They’re only maintained by the members in this House

exercising those powers and those privileges.

To maintain the confidence of British Columbians, the checks and

balances that have been created through our standing orders, procedures and

protocols must be upheld. The people of British Columbia must be satisfied

that the government they elect through democratic processes is transparent

in their dealings on our behalf and that they will be held accountable by

the members of this Legislative Assembly should they break that

trust.

As we have seen, the public allegations against the Minister of

Citizens’ Services must be investigated further, and that is why I’m asking

you, Mr. Speaker, to assess whether a prima facie breach of privilege has

occurred. If it has, I’m prepared to move a motion that the issue be

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for further

investigation.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, may I say I’m cognizant of the fact that you have afforded

my friend from Saanich North and the Islands an extensive amount of time to

make the presentation. I think that was appropriate, given the gravity of

the matter before the House. I won’t require a similar amount of time. I’m

obliged, and I think most members are obliged, to the Chair for affording

members this opportunity.

I thought it was interesting. Yesterday we received a useful reminder

from the Attorney General — via the introduction of Bill 1, of all things —

that sometimes it’s im­portant for us not to take things for

granted.

We just heard the member from Saanich North, from the Green Party,

refer back to the year 1400. There are history lessons that are appropriate

to take.

[3:20 p.m.]

Inasmuch as the accusation being made against the Minister of

Citizens’ Services is a very serious one, I thought it appropriate to

briefly reconsult the authorities that guide the Chair on matters such as

this.

I think, for this chamber and for this parliament, the clearest

authority that I can find derives from Speaker Harvey Schroeder in his

ruling on April 13, 1982. It’s found at pages 351 and 352 of

Parliamentary Practice . I must confess I have the fourth

edition, with apologies to the Table. It’s the last one I have with my name

embossed on it, so I have a certain nostalgic attachment to this

edition.

Here, in all seriousness, is what Speaker Schroeder said. The test

here is an onerous one — onerous indeed and for good reason. He writes:

“Unless there is evidence that a member has deliberately misled the House, a

matter of privilege has not been established.”

Later in the same ruling, he writes — again, pertaining to this

assembly: “…in this chamber, by its very nature, countless disputes relating

to allegations of fact will arise, and with great frequency. To routinely

convert those disagreements into what amounts to a charge of deliberately

misleading the House would be contrary to well-established traditions

observed throughout all parliaments. This tradition states that all hon.

Members will accept the word of all hon. Members, a tradition which I

commend to this House.”

The entire passage is instructive, in my view, and speaks to that

rather onerous test that must be met before sustaining the kind of

allegation that is before the House now. But if I could direct the Chair and

members’ attention to the final line, which emphasizes the point that this

House can only operate on the basis that the information that is conveyed

between members is truthful. It’s a fundamental tenet of how this place must

operate. I think your predecessor, Speaker Schroeder, included that for a

reason.

Here’s what we know about the matter before the House now. On October

18 of last year, the minister introduced Bill 22. On October 26 of last

fall, Bill 22 passed second reading after a vigorous debate. My friend from

Saanich North and the Islands has presented a comprehensive

summary of some

of the commentary. I won’t go through all of that, but I’ll refer back to a

few of it.

I am going to add to the narrative. Part of the submis­sion that

the House has heard from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, which

I think is a logical one, is that based on the circumstantial evidence,

something must have been up. The decision must have already been

made.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in ruling on this matter and this application,

you don’t have to rely on circumstantial evidence, because there are

documents. I’m going to table the documents, and you’ll have them at your

disposal.

[3:25 p.m.]

Keeping in mind what we heard from Saanich North and the Islands about

the ongoing debate, on October 27, there was an email exchange between the

minister and Kassandra Lawal.

On October 27, at 3:56 p.m., the following email went to the minister:

“To update fee recommendation, DN at­tached requiring your approval.”

Now, I’m asking the Chair to accept that “DN” means decision note. “To

up­date fee recommendation, decision note attached requiring your

approval. Cheers, Kass.”

Reply at 3:59 on October 27 from the minister: “Ap­proved.”

Decision note approved pertaining to the fees, with still a month of debate

remaining for Bill 22.

October 27, 3:40 p.m. An email from Jeannette Cook, who I understand

is or was the director of executive operations at the deputy minister’s

office of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. This is as follows: “Hi there.

Attached is the minister’s decision note for minister’s approval. Thank you,

J.C.”

Then from the minister’s office, from Kassandra Lawal, the following,

October 27 at 4:14 p.m.: “M.L.B. approved. Please apply

e-signature.”

Now, in replying to this, the government may want us to believe that

M.L.B. refers to Mr. Lyndon Baines Johnson or Major League Baseball, but

given the evidence, I’m going to suggest it’s reasonable for the Chair to

conclude that, on October 27 at 4:14, the minister approved the decision

note — which, in this case, is referred to as a decision note — pertaining

to the setting of fees.

On October 29, again from the individual Jeannette Cook in the

Ministry of Citizens’ Services office — at 3:21 p.m. on October 29 — to the

minister’s office: “Hi, Kass. Attached is the updated fee issue paper for

minister’s approval, as requested.” On the same day, at 3:51, from the

minister’s office: “M.L.B. approved. Please ap­ply

e-signature.”

As we have just heard, while all of this was taking place within the

minister’s office, within government, within her ministry, the minister was

pretending and conveying to the House that no decisions had been made, after

she had signed the decision notes making the decision. She purposely sought

to create the impression that no decision had yet been made.

There is a litany of commentary from Hansard . She said on

November 3: “Government is considering applying fees.” She had made the

decision about what those fees would be.

She talked on the same day about that, as we’ve heard from my friend

for Saanich North and the Islands, about this entirely separate process that

might one day take place — except it wasn’t just taking place. It had

already taken place. She and the government had settled the matter, and the

documentation that I will leave with you confirms that.

[3:30 p.m.]

We have heard that on November 25, following the imposition of closure

of debate, Bill 22 passed committee stage and third reading and received

royal assent. We have heard that remarkable chronology of how, within a

matter of minutes of receiving royal assent, the minister signed a corridor

order confirming application of the fee that turned into an OIC. The

minister would have us believe that she instantly signed that order in the

complete ab­sence of having taken a decision earlier.

That is what she purposely attempted to convey, and did convey, to

this assembly. These are never easy matters to resolve. They’re not easy

matters for the Chair to resolve, and I recognize that. To impugn the

conduct of a fellow member — in this case, a minister — is an incredibly

serious matter.

I also believe this. By your decision, I believe you will set the tone

for the conduct of debate that takes place in this chamber, going forward.

I’m sorry to impose the magnitude of that submission upon you, but I think

we have to settle, as perhaps we have to do periodically in the life of this

institution…. Are we going to have debate characterized by the honest

exchange of truthful and accurate information, or are we to have debate

where members use trickery or sharp practice to deliberately leave an

impression in this House that was entirely false and inaccurate?

Believe me, I have learned over the years that upholding the

traditions of this House, as articulated by Speaker Schroeder, isn’t always

easy, and it’s not always politically convenient. But in finding a prima

facie to explore further the conduct of the Minister of Citizens’ Services,

I believe you have an opportunity to remind all of us of the importance of

those standards and traditions. On the strength of the documents and

evidence that have been presented to you today, I urge you to find that

prima facie case.

Hon. L. Beare: I reserve my right to reply.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members and Minister.

M. de Jong: I should formally table the documents that I referred to in my

submission.

Mr. Speaker: That’s fine.

Members, the Chair has heard all the comments made by the member for

Saanich North and the Islands and the member for Abbotsford West. I wait to

hear the minister’s comments — hopefully soon — and I take it under

advisement.

The Chair will get back to the House at the first

opportunity.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

[3:35 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

S. Chant: I move, seconded by the member for Chilliwack:

[That we, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your

Honour for the gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the

opening of the present session.]

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to address the members

of this House in response to the throne speech.

Before I begin my remarks, I acknowledge I’m currently working and

staying on the unceded lands of the Songhees, Esquimalt and

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people and that

North Vancouver–Seymour, my riding, where I live, work and learn, is in the

territory of the Coast Salish, specifically the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish

Nations. I continue to work towards collaborating with Indigenous partners

in a variety of areas, and I value that partnership immensely.

I would also like to acknowledge the vast cultural di­versity

that gives our province so much strength and to encourage everyone to

celebrate their various events safely with and for their families and

communities. Of course, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the

constituents and businesses of North Vancouver–Seymour for their continued

support and for their belief in me as an advocate and representative on

their behalf. The opportunity to speak with many people is critically

options.

My constituency staff continue to amaze me in how effective and

efficient they are at ensuring that constituents are recognized,

acknowledged and responded to in a timely and respectful fashion, and at

wrangling me, so that I’m in the right place, doing the right thing at the

right time, which is much harder than it sounds.

Eli Mallin, Michael Charrois and Heather Andrews make up the team that

keeps my constituency office open and running. You have no idea how many

B.C. vaccine cards they have created, laminated and distributed — and also,

the printing of Canadian vaccine papers, to name a couple of the many

day-to-day functions.

And my family. My husband, Rick, continues to be the patient mainstay

who has the courage and commitment to tell me when I’m overdoing it or

overthinking, as well as being able to say no, on occasion, when I volunteer

us for too much. My daughters Lindsey and Nicole try to very hard to care

for me and provide a buffer when the media, social or otherwise, are

forcefully expressing their opinions for things done — or not done,

depending on the situation. Both my brothers, Ken and Bill, continue to

provide support and ideas on how to make things better for our community and

our province. The rest of my family and friends are honest, direct and

patient with me, for which I am grateful.

We are in a time where we all need something. Some of those needs are

common to everyone. Some of the needs are specific to individuals, groups,

communities, businesses and sectors throughout our province. Ideally, we all

work in concert to identify and meet those needs as best we can, using an

established and detailed map to chart our course.

We build this map in a variety of ways. Initially, a big picture is

laid out with all of the overarching information represented: areas of

focus, areas of concern and areas that are providing strong prototypes that

work and could be applied elsewhere.

As time and work go on, the next overlay becomes evident. Greater

detail is added, and initiatives, projects and ongoing ventures are placed,

like puzzle pieces. For some, easy to see how they fit together to form a

clear picture. For some, much more complex and needing time, money and

effort to accomplish.

Every time that we step back and look at the picture, we can see where

focus is needed. Resources are determined and allocated. Entities take on or

maintain oversight, and the work goes on. This is a cycle that repeats

itself over and over. When it is done well, it produces outcomes that can be

recognized to meet the identified needs in a way that works for and with

those who are impacted. It is ongoing work, and it’s the work of the people

and the government of this province.

The throne speech lays out the preliminary map for our work, speaking

to those identified needs and providing a platform for ongoing discussion

and efforts to create a better present and future with British Columbia. It

assures us of support for our endeavours and encourages all of us to bring

our best ideas, creativity and willingness to the table.

[3:40 p.m.]

This year, much like last year, there are many elements to be

addressed that are ongoing and new opportunities that have been recognized

for further exploration and innovation. I will speak to these ongoing areas

initially, as those are where we are the most familiar and that represent a

large component of our day-to-day business — areas such as COVID management

and recovery, which we all thought would be in the past by this

time.

However, that is not the case, and we are still demonstrating high

levels of resilience, nimbleness and dogged determination to get through

something that has impacted not only British Columbia, not only Canada or

North America but the world.

Most of us have no experience of epidemics, let alone a pandemic. As

we have seen over the past year, many people have opinions and beliefs

around how government should manage each and every aspect associated with

trying to keep a population as safe and healthy as possible. The ministries

of our government — Health, Mental Health, Labour, Education, Economic

Recovery and Innovation and, in fact, all ministries of the government —

have been focused on keeping the people of British Columbia as safe and

healthy as possible and have been moving together towards this goal in a

whole variety of ways.

The Minister of Health and public health officer providing a steady

framework to reduce transmission, to reduce the health impacts and to get

through the pandemic.

The Minister of Mental Health identifying the needs of various

populations — students, health care providers, Indigenous communities,

seniors, front-line service workers, as well as parents and families, to

name a few — and bringing in supports that are available at the end of a

cell phone, a computer, a land line or other device, as well as in-person

services.

The Minister of Economic Recovery and Innovation distributing grants

to small and medium businesses to help them get through the downturns that

came with the COVID waves, supporting those businesses to get into the

virtual marketplace.

The Minister of Labour initially ensuring that workers could get time

off to be vaccinated and that there was an interim plan for paid sick leave

that allowed workers to not have to choose between going to work sick or not

getting paid — an initiative that laid out the preliminary steps for the

five days’ paid sick leave for all B.C. workers that came into effect on

January 1 of this year.

The Minister of Education, in conjunction with the school boards,

staff and administration, kept our schools open as much as possible to

provide a structured, safe and healthy environment that kids and families

can count on, as well as ensuring that there are alternate options available

if in-classroom attendance cannot be achieved.

Actually, I think that everyone is getting the picture of teams of

people working together to deal with an entity that has evolved and changed

over the past two years. I could continue to outline what each ministry and

staff have been doing to mitigate, remediate and eradicate COVID. However,

there is a limit to the time I get to speak, and I must ensure that I

acknowledge the work of the other official parties in bringing forward

concerns, identified gaps and questions that ensure that the voices of all

British Columbians are heard.

On top of the management and recovery from COVID, there are so many

other matters that need attention, whether ongoing or something new. The

work of the government does not stop because of the pandemic. It keeps

going, to address such things as climate change, where the CleanBC map

outlines many steps being taken to reduce emissions, decrease carbon

footprints, increase energy conservation and explore a transition to

alternate energy options, to name a few of the focal points.

Forestry practices are under review and revision to bring them into

the current application so that the many values of our beautiful and

bountiful trees are able to be enjoyed and stewarded in ways that benefit

all. A royalty review has been initiated, looking at oil and gas subsidies

and how producers can contribute to the economic recovery and growth in our

province.

New provincial parks have been designated, with protected flora and

fauna ecosystems. Other parks have been renamed in recognition of our

Indigenous partners, which includes, I might add, Say Nuth Khaw Yum Park.

Here is where the Tsleil-Waututh Nation has been doing some amazing work in

rehabilitating the inlet waters, so much so that the natural bounty of the

sea has begun to be edible again. The eelgrass which supports and sustains

many aquatic creatures, has revived, and we recently saw whales coming into

the inlet — magic.

Funding has gone out to a myriad of groups that husband the land,

water, animals, plants and fish of our province, sometimes to rehabilitate,

sometimes to promote and sometimes to maintain a vast spectrum of natural

abundance.

[3:45 p.m.]

B.C. is a leader in the number of electric vehicles being used, a

trend that has been evident over the last couple of years. Supportive local

initiatives such as banning single-use plastics, recycling fishing gear that

has been taken out of the ocean, clearing the coastal beaches of flotsam and

jetsam accumulated over the years, establishing a temporary ban on the use

of rodenticides, streamlining the process to return bottles and cans —

starting this month, to be able to return milk containers for a refund. All

of these things contribute towards our efforts to manage the environmental

aspects of climate change.

Then we have to look at how to manage the impact this climate change

is having on our lives overall, with temperature fluctuations beyond the

norms established over the past 150 years. Heat, cold, fires, floods, winds

and the subsequent effects of these extremes provide a task of herculean

proportions to save lives, save livelihoods, keep supply chains moving or

help rebuild, not to mention all the efforts that are put in proactively to

be ready for these events when they occur and provide service and support

toward keeping people safe and healthy while it is happening, for whatever

the duration.

I would be most remiss if I did not speak to the ongoing and

extraordinary work of the B.C. health care system, with its multitude of

aspects that are all concentrated not only on getting us through COVID but

on the ongoing aspects of promotion, protection and maintenance of health of

people across their lifespan.

There are registered nurses, nurse practitioners, licensed practical

nurses and care aides in hospitals, long-term-care facilities, community

clinics and a variety of other settings, trying to ensure the best possible

care for clients. That care includes things like personal care, symptom

management, wound care and palliation, to name a few foci.

There are physicians in public care settings, in clinics and in their

own offices, seeing patients either remotely or in person, also aiming to

keep the population as healthy as possible or achieve a manageable quality

of life. All the other clinicians — occupational therapists,

physiotherapists, respiratory therapists, dietitians, imaging technicians,

phlebotomists, lab technicians and more — have specialized education and are

there to provide the best possible care.

Our housekeepers and maintenance crews are critical in maintaining

clean, safe environments for patients to recuperate and for staff to work

safely. Dietary aides ensure that appropriate and nutritious meals are able

to be consumed, and the clerical staff make sure that the administration and

communication flow as smoothly as possible.

The first responders out in our communities, our fire and police, who

re-establish community safety, and our emergency medical technicians, who

assess, stabilize and transport sick and injured people to a higher level of

care — all of these links are critical and in place, COVID or not. Again, I

offer the gratitude of this House towards the dedication, commitment and

determination of the folks in this sector, who continue to serve this

province through the most difficult of times.

How to speak to the overdose crisis that is terrifying and terrible in

the loss of life, grief, guilt and profound impact on those touched by its

unpredictable presence? So many things have been done to stem the flow of

death, and there’s so much more that can and will be done.

Access to services, treatment, care for all ages, all walks of life,

all communities. Increased awareness of the pois­oned drug supply,

combined with increased access to safe drugs or alternatives. More education

in schools, in businesses and workplaces, on construction sites and a

variety of other settings. Talking about drug use, reducing and eradicating

the stigma. Not using alone. How to recognize overdose and be able to use

antidotes such as naloxone.

Efforts to update the Criminal Code so that possession for the purpose

of personal use is no longer a criminal offence to be dealt with by the

police and judicial system. Bringing the concept of addiction into the world

of health and illness, rather than that of crime, shame or stigma. Creating

safe spaces for using or rehabilitating, spaces that are accessible and

useful to all those who do access them. The trajectory of this type of

preventable death will change as we all work together to identify and create

the information, tools, services and resources that are needed for people to

not only survive but thrive.

[3:50 p.m.]

Economic recovery and stability are vital to the future of our

province and the population. There are no cookie-cutter plans that can be

applied to all sectors or even to all components of any given sector. That

is why all of our ministries have been creating and implementing a full

spectrum of support options for our businesses.

Tourism operators have pivoted to do environmental cleanup of our

coasts, supporting the vaccine clinics and a variety of other

functions.

Many of my constituents work in the film industry. After a worldwide

shutdown of film production, Hollywood North and our burgeoning tech sector

are on the rebound because of stringent COVID protocols that served to

create and maintain a healthy and safe workplace.

Artists and arts and culture organizations have pivoted really well to

online creation and distribution so that even in times of isolation and

lockdown, we can still turn to our storytellers for solace and

entertainment. My office is currently showcasing works from a group called

arTHANKS, which has done artwork to give to health care providers as a

gesture of thanks from the art community to the health care

community.

A significant number of businesses have applied for and received small

and medium business grants, circuit breaker and closure grants to help them

maintain staff and continue to provide services. Five days of paid sick

leave for those who have never had it in their work contract to reduce the

transmission of infectious diseases: COVID, flu, colds, many other things.

Increasing the numbers of $10-a-day child care spaces to enable families to

make choices about their work-life balance that are not solely driven by

child care needs.

These are but a few examples of the last year’s work and products of

our government. However, as has been said a number of times, there is still

lots to be done.

Helping some of our bigger companies and investors transition into new

ways of working and managing the natural resources.

Promoting the work that our Indigenous partners are already doing in

supporting the recovery, rehabilitation and renewal of our waterways and

lands.

Conversing with communities on what they need to thrive

post-COVID.

Supporting non-profit organizations and the amazing work that they do

in so many critical areas: housing, supply chain, food safety,

socialization, crisis counselling, child care, health care management,

building community gardens, organizing events that can be enjoyed safely and

so many more things that I could outline, all of which contribute to the

strength, resiliency and viability of our communities.

Reducing household costs is an ongoing target of our government. ICBC

rebates and reduced costs for insurance, no cost for MSP, increasing the

minimum wage, $10-a-day child care and the child opportunity benefit are all

examples that provide a template for further efforts toward safe, affordable

home life, employment and environment for all of us.

This is just a short list of the things that will continue to occur in

order to support recovery and stability for British Columbia, for people,

business and industry.

The other thing that we must keep high on our radar is full inclusion

of all members of our British Columbia society. Not only is it the right

thing that we should be doing at all times, but it is also a huge benefit to

our economy in a whole variety of ways.

Over the past year, our job creation has moved steadily upward,

currently reaching a point similar to pre-pandemic numbers. It is no secret

to anyone that there are staffing shortages in the entire spectrum of work

environments — again a by-product, perhaps, of the pandemic. However,

critical in our recovery efforts.

The more of our population that is actively employed, the stronger our

communities and our province. Everyone should have access to a vocation that

pays fairly, has appropriate hours available and is able to offer support as

needed to ensure that anyone who has the skills, motivation, interest and

willingness has a position that they work in and that works for

them.

Inclusion is not something that only speaks in the workplace. It is a

framework that must be applied cradle to grave — education, recreation,

vocation, health care, culture, language, faith and gender equity, to name a

few ap­plications. Inclusion must be integrated into all resources and

services, public and private. For some entities, this will require a

paradigm shift. For others, it’s something that has been part of the vision

and mission statements and is incorporated to an extent. For surprisingly

few establishments, it is so much of a norm that in an instance where an

accommodation is needed, it’s nothing special or difficult.

[3:55 p.m.]

An example of one area already implemented is the ability to

self-designate a variety of gender options on provincial identification.

This is where our province strives to be. To cite my many colleagues, the

work continues steadily forward.

B.C.’s senior citizens have been hit hard by the COVID pandemic and

continue to be one of our most vulnerable populations. Long-term-care

facilities in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour were ground zero in the

first wave, and that’s where the front-line work truly started to try to

figure out how to change the trajectory of a deadly virus.

Decisions were made to have health care providers work at single sites

to reduce transmission. Wages were addressed, sick time was reviewed, and

ultimately, 3,000 more front-line providers were recruited and trained. This

was done with an investment of $585 million over three years to launch and

support the health career ac­cess program.

An additional $1 million went to the Family Caregivers of B.C., where

it was directly put toward supporting caregivers of seniors and others. Our

government included stakeholders in planning and decision-making and has

made significant investments into long-term care.

Another change includes implementing higher care standards to make

sure seniors living in long-term-care environments throughout the province

receive at least 3.36 hours of care and support per day. That is almost a

third increase. Our seniors B.C. website offers information and links for

healthy living, transportation, housing and more to help seniors and their

caregivers.

Every person in B.C. deserves to live their older years in dignity,

safety and with optimal health. Our government has taken steps to make this

commitment a reality for seniors in long-term care and in the community. The

North Shore has seen the opening of a new long-term-care facility,

Creekstone, and is watching as our Lions Gate Hospital builds a new acute

care tower, with single-person rooms for enhanced infection control and an

increased variety of in-house services.

Child care continues to be a top priority of our government as we

expand access to affordable care, enhancing opportunities for families to

thrive. Our commitment to $10-a-day daycare is augmented with the building

of new facilities and the integration of many existing ones as well as

developing government programs. We continue to take strong steps to reduce

the wait-lists that parents face to get their kids into care and to reduce

the cost of keeping their kids in a safe, healthy and stimulating

environment.

Incorporating our child care systems into our Ministry of Education

will provide a solid base for the development of further programs and

policies that ensure equitable and affordable access. This shift will also

help parents feel confident that child care is a core service for families

across this province, reliable and one where no one is left behind. Early

childhood education and quality care better equips kids for starting school,

promoting a smoother transition for families during a critical time in a

child