Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING (No. 4)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued).

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s get this underway. We’re here on Bill 2, and we are on clause 2.

On clause 2, I see my friend from Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m glad to see you.

Just before we start, I’d like to thank the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. That heartfelt dissertation about a good friend that’s been lost makes a big difference in this place. It really strikes home why we’re here and the differences that we can make. Thank you very much for that.

My last comment is to the minister. Look out, Minister. The staff gave me an eyeglass cleaner, so now I can read my notes. You’re in trouble now.

I would ask the minister…. Right before lunch, we were talking about actions of good and bad faith. So how would the minister define an action or a decision taken in bad faith in section 2?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Section 58(3) is a common provision found in B.C. laws. Its function is to limit the application of the validation of actions in such a way that those actions are valid so long as they are taken or done in good faith. Ultimately, it would be up to the courts to determine whether an action or decision taken or omitted was in bad faith.

D. Ashton: It’s my understanding that the court, not the ministry, would give a ruling on “in bad faith”?

Hon. J. Osborne: Ultimately, if it was challenged in courts, it would be up to the court to determine that, yes.

D. Ashton: Challenged in court. But I would hope the ministry would have some interaction before court, that it wouldn’t go to court and the opportunity…. Again, we’re dealing with an extraordinary circumstance, with a reduced council and an expedient timeline, trying to get people back in their homes. So if there were some challenges that came up, if the minister could just confirm that she and her ministry staff would be dealing with it, rather than having to wait for a court decision.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. It bears repeating again that part of the application of this clause…. In having the village of Lytton approach the province to ask for a particular exemption, the Municipal Affairs staff, working with the village staff, would make a determination of whether to recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to use the regulation-making authorities that it has.

If it is not recommended by staff, it won’t come forward to the Lieutenant-Governor. But ultimately, if an application is made to the courts, it is there that it will be decided what bad faith is.

D. Ashton: Could the minister or her staff give a situational example of No.1, just for clarity for myself, of a bad-faith incident and how that decision is handled?

Hon. J. Osborne: The intention of this provision is to validate an action that has been taken under a lost bylaw, so it’s limited to lost bylaws and actions taken in good faith only. It can only be used if brought into force by a regulation, and there are a series of checks and balances that I have been describing in previous answers to questions given that must work between, again, Municipal Affairs staff and the Lytton staff before a recommendation is even brought to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to enact a regulation to allow this provision to be used.

[1:50 p.m.]

I can’t speculate on a hypothetical circumstance that might take place for Lytton, but I can assure the member and the House, of course, that this is a common provision found in B.C. laws, and that is why it is here.

D. Ashton: MEVA, to me, is…. Time is of the essence. We’re dealing with a whole bunch of really unfortunate issues in Lytton and other places that MEVA has been utilized. Is, or will there be, ministry staff there to help Lytton staff and those who are working hard to try and get the community back on its feet, for a checkpoint or a check in lieu, as this proceeds? And/or to ensure, before it goes to council for a decision, which I’m sure council is going to have to readopt on it….

Are there checks and balances through the ministry to ensure that maybe a decision in bad faith does not occur? Maybe that would stop the possibility of an extended tenure of having to go to the courts to challenge it. I guess my question, directly, is: are ministry staff there before, during and after any decision that has been made at Lytton’s council?

Hon. J. Osborne: In short, yes. Municipal Affairs staff are working closely with the Lytton mayor and council and staff. I do want to add the proviso that they do provide policy advice, but not legal advice.

D. Ashton: Just a question, again, to the minister. Lytton is working with a reduced council at this point in time. Two members is my understanding — so a mayor and two council members. As we all know, smaller councils are challenging at the best of times trying to get a consensus built up, and a non-consensus where there is a bit of questionability on things can cause a bit of a stalemate.

With that reduced council…. I don’t want to suggest something out of the ordinary, but is there more attention being paid to help that reduced council at this time? When would the by-election be called to hopefully fill the additional positions so that the people of Merritt will be able to have a full council and be able to let council weigh those important decisions that are going to be taking place with not only MEVA, but also in the general reconstruction of the town of Merritt?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, it is correct that Lytton currently has a reduced council with one mayor and two councillors. Of course, they still meet the requirements for quorum and can constitute council meetings and pass decisions.

[1:55 p.m.]

Because of the circumstances that Lytton is facing, the staff at Municipal Affairs are providing extra support to the municipality. A chief election officer has been appointed, and an election is scheduled for April 30 to fill the two vacancies.

D. Ashton: No further questions on section 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

D. Ashton: Could the minister and staff just walk the House and the gallery through this section, please?

Hon. J. Osborne: This section adds regulation-making authorities for regulations that are contemplated by the new division to assist council of the village of Lytton in repealing as well as replacing the bylaws that were lost or partially lost. Specifically, these authorities allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to waive, modify or replace the legislated requirements that would normally need to be met by the council when adopting a bylaw.

These authorities will assist the village of Lytton in repealing as well as replacing any of the lost or partially lost bylaws when the unknown content of the specified bylaw makes it challenging to meet existing legislative requirements for bylaw adoption. These authorities allow for exceptions and modifications to be made by regulation to legislated requirements for a specific bylaw, as contemplated in section 57, and these regulations may be made retroactive to June 30, 2021.

D. Ashton: Public input is incredibly important, especially when you’re rebuilding a town or especially when you’re rebuilding your own home. I know that there has been discussion about what Lytton may or may not look like in the future. How is the public going to be ensured that…?

What I heard from the minister, under section 3, is that there is an opportunity to reduce time — I’m assuming the time frames that she was speaking of — and reduce public input to get lost or partially lost bylaws back in place. How do we ensure that the public is going to have some form of input into those, which will be incredibly important for their rebuilding?

Hon. J. Osborne: As I mentioned before, any requests from the Lytton council to use the regulation-making authority will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes careful consideration that would be given to public engagement and consultation with First Nations.

These regulation-making authorities also allow the province to place terms or conditions on any waived or modified requirements. Again, these amendments are intended to provide the village with flexibility to respond to the challenges that they are facing because of this unprecedented situation.

D. Ashton: The minister mentioned First Nations, and I understand the consultation. But will First Nations be able to have input into the ongoing and forthcoming operation of the city of Lytton and their regulatory bylaws?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: All residents of Lytton or people living in the Lytton area have the opportunity to comment and provide input to council on the creation of new bylaws at open public council meetings. But again, if this regulation-making authority was used on a case-by-case basis, the province would consider this and may — has the opportunity to — place conditions on any modified or waived requirements that could include consultation with First Nations.

D. Ashton: To the minister, who would pay for that, then — that consultation during this process? Is it the responsibility of the citizens of Lytton and their council to go out for each and every regulation, or is this something that the ministry, your ministry, and the Indigenous relationship ministry would be stepping forward to help Lytton with?

Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, this would be considered on a case-by-case basis. In the event that the province does place a term or condition on the village of Lytton for First Nations consultation, then it would be the responsibility of the village to undertake that, but of course, the province would be there to provide support and guidance through that.

D. Ashton: Responsibility is a big word for…. I know Lytton has no money. I know they’re hardly functioning as it is right now.

I guess more of a statement than a question. I would just hope that the various ministries are there to ensure that consultation. You heard what my peers have said on this side about consultation through UNDRIP. Coming from municipal government, I know that we would always do our best to ensure that First Nations surrounding Penticton and those surrounding and encompassing part of the regional district were notified of it, but that was a long time ago. Now it’s the consultation bit that comes forward, and with consultation is time and money.

Again, I would just ask: is the ministry going to be there, or various ministries — with the minister’s best knowledge and staff’s best knowledge — to help accommodate this consultative process?

Hon. J. Osborne: Certainly if this term or condition was applied, the province would be there to support the village of Lytton. Indeed, we did just provide over $8 million of funding specifically for operations, governance and to assist the village with lost revenue and greater expenses that they’ve experienced in the last few months.

D. Ashton: Have any regulations been drafted as of yet in Lytton? Maybe just to qualify that: and/or replaced partially or in their entirety?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The answer is no. The regulation-making authorities are only going to be used when needed, on a case-by-case basis, where council requires that greater flexibility to respond to the challenges that they’re facing. If a regulation is developed to shorten the validation period in Bill 2, which we spoke of earlier today, this would occur once and only when all the lost bylaws have been repealed.

D. Ashton: So would the people of Lytton be consulted when any of these regulations are coming forward? How would they be handled? Again, that consultation time frame. And also to add and maybe combine two questions at once: would that information also be going out to First Nations present in the surrounding area of Merritt?

Hon. J. Osborne: Should the Lytton council decide to approach the province with a request to use the regulation-making authority, council would adopt a resolution in an open public meeting. So this would form part of their agenda. Notice would go out to the public. Public would have the opportunity to comment just as they would on any other matter on the council agenda.

M. Lee: Well, thank you to the member for Penticton for just inviting me to enter this committee process again.

To further discuss this point, I again would draw the attention of the minister to article 19 of DRIPA, which we canvassed earlier in a different way, relating to consultation. I appreciate that the minister is conveying that this would be a step-by-step, case-by-case basis, but that’s not what free, prior, informed consent calls for. Free, prior, informed consent calls for an earlier conversation, collaboration and consideration. It certainly doesn’t call for just notification, which is the point I made before.

It sounds to me that the minister is acknowledging that there may well be a need for consultation relating to an administrative measure that might affect the local First Nation. If that’s the case, how is the free, prior, informed consent requirement out of article 19 being met by what she just described?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, this legislation is extremely narrow in scope and pertains to the legal authority in providing certainty to the village of Lytton to re-establish what it lost.

On the regulation-making authority defined in clause 3, if, on a case-by-case basis, it was determined it was needed, it could become a term or condition. But to be clear, we do not currently have any requests.

D. Ashton: Just a quick question on 3. In 59, it says that this subsection sets out the condition that, under subsection (2), a regulation “may be different for different bylaws or classes of bylaws.”

Could you explain quickly, yourself or staff, why a regulation may be different for different bylaws? I thought it was an umbrella, but if there is a pick and choose on this, I’m just curious as to the effect.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. This is a standard differentiation power that’s found across B.C. laws. Different bylaws may have different legislated requirements. This provides the flexibility so that, again on a case-by-case basis, the regulation, if used, can be crafted correctly.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister. I appreciate that. What would be a situation in which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would make a regulation or regulations?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Okay, so a specific example. This is great, because it gets technical. There is a type of bylaw that a municipality can pass: a highway or road closure bylaw.

In the case of a municipality repealing a road closure bylaw, it must provide public notice. In the case of a municipality creating a road closure bylaw, it must also provide public notice. The public notice period takes some time. In the case of Lytton, if they have lost a road closure bylaw, in order to repeal and replace, we could, by regulation, modify the requirements so that they only have to provide public notice once, which would shorten the period of time for them to accommodate this or to achieve this.

D. Ashton: The minister stole my thunder on my last question, about a description of a regulation that might be replaced, so we killed two birds with one stone.

Just in closing, very quickly, I would just like to say thank you to yourself and your peers for facilitating what I think was a very good discussion about the future of Lytton and how the government is going to provide administrative opportunities and, in numerous ways, help re-establish a community that really isn’t a community right now because many of its citizens aren’t there. Not by choice. They want to be home.

I would just ask that not only the minister but her peers in government do absolutely everything possible to ensure the expediency of getting those people back into their homes. It’s going to take a broad brush.

[2:20 p.m.]

We talk about a ministry that I have a huge amount of respect for, coming from local government. I know how hard they all work and how accommodating they are to the naivety of some new mayors, some older mayors and some people on regional districts and that, but they’re always there. What it’s going to take is a huge, concerted effort. These people want to be home quicker than later, so let’s all work together in this House.

I would like to thank the member for Vancouver-Langara and the member for Skeena for their questions. I think those questions were incredibly important. Maybe they varied a little tiny bit from the direct part, but it gave some thought to a process that’s probably just wider than MEVA, because there are so many questions that are out there.

In closing, again, I would like to thank the ministerial staff. I would really like to thank the minister. I look forward to working with her, not only for Lytton — let’s get Lytton underneath our bootstraps, first of all, and get it up and running — but also the rest of the province.

Finally, between when we adjourned for lunch and then came back, I had a quick email. It was about the fire. This gentleman just asked…. It’s actually a family. They said: “Why is Lytton being considered different than other fires?” They talked about the White Rock fire that burned 100 homes, after Lytton, and they’re already cleaning up their properties. Even as the embers were cooling, they were in there cleaning it up.

The Elephant Hill fire in 2017, the 100 Mile House fire, the Williams Lake and the Loon Lake fires, the properties that were lost in the early ’90s in Kelowna — none of them were declared toxic and fenced off for the residents, for eight months now, without even cleanup being offered in the time frame.

Lytton has been promised, by government, to be the eye of the future of municipalities and a village of the future. Lytton wants to get rebuilt. Let’s do whatever we can to help these people get rebuilt and make sure that a vision that maybe many have about the future of what communities are going to look like doesn’t interfere with getting people back in their houses.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Thank you to the minister and staff. I look forward to ongoing opportunities to make improvements for all the citizens of British Columbia.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: Just before making this motion, I want to thank the critic for Municipal Affairs and my colleagues across government and on the other side of the House, in both parties, for all the work that has been done in this committee stage.

I do want to comment that all of this work requires compassion, determination, persistence and a tremendous amount of patience as we move through this together. We’re overcoming the obstacles that we’re encountering along the way. I do want the people of Lytton to know that our entire government — and, as the member for Penticton has said, indeed this entire House — is deeply committed to their recovery and continuing to do everything possible as we work together to rebuild and restore their community.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING (No. 4)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, 2022, and I call for a short recess while we wait for the minister and his entourage to arrive.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for a few minutes.

The House recessed at 2:27 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I am calling the committee back to order. We are on Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: We are ready.

Interjections.

R. Merrifield: That was really good. I liked the intro. It was quick. It was snappy. It definitely kept me on my feet.

[2:40 p.m.]

As this is my very first bill, I’m sure the minister is going to find it super easy but a very energetic process. Probably the most exciting boundary amendment of the protection areas that we’ve ever had, largely because I’m very passionate about the environment. It’s something that I feel very privileged to be a part of and to ask the questions to further my understanding, to further British Columbians’ understanding, but also to make sure that we’ve protected everything that we possibly can of B.C.’s most celebrated aspects of Mother Earth, our parks.

While I understand that most of these amendments are fairly routine in nature, and the decisions are pretty basic, I believe that the discussion that we’re about to have is very necessary. So I thank the Chair for getting started.

My first question is this. Why are these parks chosen for these amendments at this time, rather than others? I know that in the briefing that we received, some of these parks have been…. Since 2019, purchases were made. In 2020, purchases were made.

I’m just asking: what is the process by which these come to fruition and come to be in this particular amendment bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps I could ask the member to just clarify. Is the member asking how we prioritize lands to purchase for addition to parks or how we prioritize what to bring forward in legislation?

R. Merrifield: It’s actually how the timing is established. After we make the purchase — because some of these purchases were made in 2019 and in 2020 — what is the process which each of these land parcels goes through to then come to this House?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

The first thing that happens after we purchase private land and are considering an addition to a park is that we need to prepare a boundary description, which is usually the official plan, as I noted in my second reading remarks yesterday. But by far the most important piece is to ensure that we both consult and collaborate with Indigenous nations.

This will not be an exhaustive description of the process, but in brief, they will begin with an initial engagement through a meeting, phone call or letter to provide information about the proposal to the potentially affected nations. There’s a notification to Indigenous nations, in the case of private land, immediately following acquisition. That information includes maps, background information and an open opportunity for dialogue around the proposal.

[2:45 p.m.]

The dialogue could include sharing of information between the parties on possible future opportunities for increased Indigenous nation engagement and collaboration with B.C. Parks in the management of the lands.

In some cases, the nation will provide their support directly, following an initial response letter. It may be virtually — not immediate but fairly close, in which case we can proceed to add it to that year’s protected areas amendment act bill.

In some cases, we’ve had amendments that have included over two years of consultation. That’s to give time to discuss a range of questions and concerns that the nations may have, to collaborate on site visits, to build relationships and, frankly, for the ministry to learn more about Indigenous knowledge, values and interests in the area that will help inform the decision about adding it to the park and how it will be managed and to do it in a way that aligns with and is agreed to by the nations that are affected.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that helpful overview in terms of what is presented here under this bill, in terms of the ten additions and a few other deletions. Perhaps I could just ask the question this way: in terms of what is listed in this bill, could the minister just identify which of these protected areas are areas that are subject to an existing Aboriginal right — land right or title right? Which of these protected areas has the government entered into consultation on?

Hon. G. Heyman: In general answer to the initial question by the member for Vancouver-Langara, every single one of these additions would be subject to asserted Indigenous rights. We consult on the same basis and in depth with all nations that have an asserted Indigenous right.

I’m going to give an example of this in the case of Gladstone Park, which will provide a significant amount of detail. Then if the member would like me to do it for every single addition, I will — or if the member has specific additions that he would like to question. But I think the initial example at least will serve to indicate to the members and the public some of the depth.

[2:50 p.m.]

Let’s start with the addition to Gladstone Park. The nations that had interests were the Lower Similkameen Indian Band, the Penticton Indian Band, the Upper Nicola Indian Band, the Osoyoos Indian Band, the Okanagan Indian Band, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, the Ktunaxa Nation Council and the Simpcw. They were all consulted.

Consultation with the Osoyoos Indian Band took place from April 2019 to July 2019, a little over two years. The Osoyoos Indian Band staff initially raised concerns and did not support the addition, which is clearly why we had a lengthy consultation with them.

Following significant efforts by both parties to understand the concerns and explore future collaboration opportunities, which included a site visit to the lake in 2020 and June of 2021 as well, B.C. Parks received a letter from Chief Clarence Louie, of the Osoyoos Indian Band, providing their support for the proposed addition.

Given the time frame over which consultation was conducted, an update was sent in July 2021 to all of the individual bands and nation-level entities indicating that the project was moving ahead, and no further concerns were raised from this follow-up. As I mentioned, the concerns…. We took a significant amount of time and effort to see if we could resolve the concerns that were raised by the Osoyoos Indian band collaboratively and productively.

I’ll take my seat for a moment. If the member would like me to go through the entire list, I will. Or if the member wants to choose particular additions and question me on those, I will do that as well.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister, and thank you for using Gladstone Park as an example. Obviously, there’s a lot of detail that the minister could share with us. I know that the member for Kelowna-Mission had the benefit of a briefing with the minister and staff, and there was one that was noted for example.

If we can just select that one as another example here, Naikoon Park. I understand there was some significant consultation done with the Haida First Nation on that one. Perhaps the minister could just outline that one as well.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. This one is simpler in many regards because, as the member will know, the only nation affected in Haida Gwaii is the Haida. The purchase occurred in 2020. On December 15, 2020, the area supervisor for B.C. Parks in the area sent a letter to the Haida with information and to see if there was support for the proposed addition of the park.

There was a meeting by phone in March 2021, approximately three months later, with the counsel of the Haida Nation vice-president, Trevor Russ, to discuss the proposed addition. At that point, Trevor Russ indicated that a letter of support would be provided to the ministry. That letter was provided on April 28, 2021, stating support for the proposed addition of the two former lots to Naikoon Park.

M. Lee: Just on this particular park, it’s my understanding that there were some additional activities where they’re beyond just the consultation, which sounded like more of a notification and letter of support process. Was there some sort of planning exercise or activity done, as well, with the Haida First Nation?

Hon. G. Heyman: With respect to this amendment, there was no additional detailed discussion around issues with the Haida. But there are, for Naikoon Park as a whole, ongoing discussions on operational issues all the time. Operational issues that come up are discussed fully with the Haida. As part of a joint solutions project and as part of an agreement with the Haida and the B.C. government called the Changing Tide agreement, one of the items for discussion that we are engaged in is the whole question of governance and management of the entirety of Naikoon Park.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just in terms of when I look at the neighbouring ecological reserves and conservancies around Naikoon Park, that would suggest that there is an ongoing overall input and involvement with the Haida for the entire area. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is correct. All of the conservancies and ecological reserves surrounding Nai­koon Park are part of the ongoing discussions with the Haida around ultimate governance arrangements.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. Obviously, I am coming at this as the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, so I appreciate the time that the member for Kelowna-Mission has provided here.

Just to continue to look through it from that lens, the other protected areas that are listed to Bill 3…. Are there similar plans with other First Nations that are involved for the other protected areas, like this particular area with Naikoon Park and the Haida?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As I mentioned with respect to Gladstone and our consultation with the Osoyoos Indian Band, we committed to ongoing discussions regarding management and collaboration with the Indigenous nation. We routinely consult with nations with interests in every park, not just the ones listed in this bill, with respect to, for example, park use permits, as well as regular ongoing operational matters.

We are certainly open when any nation raises the desire to engage directly with us on either a specific operational issue or a management issue of a park or to discuss the opportunities for collaborative management or participation in management or co-management. We are certainly open to those discussions and generally enter into them.

I don’t have knowledge of any specific formal process with regard to the other parks listed in the bill, although those may be topics that have been raised by nations as part of a broader government-to-government agreement or process that would be overseen by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

I can’t give a more detailed answer to that question now, but I’m certainly prepared, if the member wants to check back with Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and provide any further detail that’s available.

M. Lee: This does touch on one point that I was addressing in my second reading speech on this bill, which is what the minister just referred to. In terms of co-development and co-management and stewardship of Environment lands and resources, I note with interest that is what is set out in the draft action plan on the implementation of UNDRIP, 2.7. I think that does give me a general understanding as to the minister’s current approach, let’s say, in terms of where that stands.

In terms of opportunities to look at these protected areas as part of the larger piece of land management, environmental stewardship, that’s the reason why I’m particularly interested in how these protected areas are being dealt with at this juncture and the understanding as to how that links up with other opportunities to work with First Nations, nation-to-nation, as the minister just indicated, if not in any other manner.

Why don’t I just come back to another particular protected area. That’s the Okanagan Mountain Park, and there clearly are members on this side of the House who have great familiarity with that region — the members for Kelowna West, Kelowna-Mission, Kelowna–Lake Country and Penticton.

Could I just ask the minister to comment on that particular addition of the 23 hectares and what level of consultation and involvement there has been with local First Nations?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I’ll answer the specific question. With respect to Okanagan Park, the following nations and the following Indigenous communities were consulted: the Lower Similkameen Indian Band, Nooaitch Indian Band, Okanagan Indian Band, Penticton Indian Band, Upper Nicola Indian Band, Westbank First Nation and the Okanagan Nation Alliance.

The Penticton Indian Band deferred to the Westbank First Nation, and the Westbank First Nation provided support for the park additions. No other responses were received. I do have a record of the dates and times of outreach and the response, or lack of response, from different communities, which I could paraphrase or read for the member, but I think the summary is pretty much what I read. Everyone was contacted; one deferred. The nation to which they deferred had no issues.

I also want to address the point the member raised at the start of his comments, which was an excellent one, because there are lots of opportunities with respect to conservancies and protected areas that some nations are identifying, that others identify and that nations come to support. There are some good examples of work we’re doing outside of these amendments, and I just want to highlight a couple of them.

We recently established a couple of new conservancies that were recommended by Indigenous nations for protection. One is the Tsaa Nuna conservancy, which is 5,300 hectares, established at the request of the Halfway River First Nation. More recently, we established the Tenh Dzetle Conservancy. We actually more recently adopted the Tahltan name Tenh Dzetle for an area that we added as a conservancy, at their request and urging, that was formerly known as Mount Edziza Conservancy.

These recommendations generally come to us through government-to-government planning processes where we engage in a broad range of discussions with nations about reconciliation issues they raise, including, for many if not all, an interest in conservation — and certainly, I would say, for all — a voice in how land and waters are treated and managed in their territories in which they have interest.

[3:15 p.m.]

I was quite pleased with these two conservancies that were established recently. I look forward to other opportunities to responding positively to protecting important cultural, social, historical and ecosystem values for nations with whom we’re engaged.

The Chair: Members, just note that this bill is separated. The different parks are in different clauses. If you have questions that are of a larger scope that happen to cover the other ones, that’s fine. But if you could reserve specific questions around the specific parks relative to their specific clause.

M. Lee: I’m happy to have more general questions, Madam Chair, in terms of the overall approach to Indigenous relations and reconciliation through these protected areas. It may well be that, of course, as the lead critic, the member for Kelowna-Mission will have more specific questions as follow-ons for each of the individual protected areas.

Let me say that in terms of the process of consultation and notification — just using the three examples that the minister has shared with the House to date — it sounds like, at least in the nature of Naikoon Park and Okanagan Mountain Park, there was notification to each of the Indigenous communities and First Nations involved, as understood by the government and the Crown.

Just in terms of the scale, then, in terms of looking at those protected areas that have, let’s say, a lower strength of claim and, potentially, a less serious negative impact or effect on a particular identified right of Indigenous peoples’ land and title right to the area that is in question, versus the higher level, at the other end of the spectrum in terms of consultation — which would suggest more consultation involvement — I think that in terms of Gladstone Park, it sounded like, given the nature of it and the number of First Nations involved, it was a fairly involved consultation process.

I’d ask: in terms of the usual range, in terms of the lower end, let’s say, of the level of consultations versus the higher end, could the minister give a sense to the House as to which protected areas fell in the lower end — i.e., just the notification approach — or something that was more involved, by way of consultation, towards something that had a stronger claim, or a more serious negative effect impacting particular title rights, in that area?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We initiate engagement with all nations that express an interest in a particular territory, and we don’t scale our initial engagement with them based on any evaluation of strength of claim. If a nation doesn’t respond to us or indicates that they’re fine, that’s the extent of it. Or if they defer to another nation — they have done that.

If a nation, on the other hand, has questions or wants to engage with us, we do that. We do that for two reasons: because we think that B.C. Parks has a lot to learn from what nations can tell us about the history of traditional use of that area — stories, myths, social, cultural and spiritual significance of an area, of which we may be completely unaware. Of course, we understand that in some cases, some of that information is treated by a nation as to be held carefully and not shared, other than with particular people, and we respect that.

The second reason, of course, is we want the nations’ questions to be answered. We want the nations’ interests to be reflected and, ultimately, we want the nations to be fully in support. There are a number of reasons for that.

Reconciliation and recognition of rights and interests is obviously one of them. But we think that whenever we can work together and move toward collaboration, even if it’s on operational issues or change of use issues right up the spectrum to, ultimately, discussions about governance or co-management…. We have the opportunity to include the cultural record of the park, as well as the design of park educational and interpretive materials, as well as even opportunities to shape how a park is used for all British Columbians, to enrich ourselves from an understanding and knowledge of the history of the place that we are visiting.

Of course, we are also interested in ensuring that the legitimate interests and rights and interests of Indigenous people are incorporated in planning and changes that we make to B.C. Parks. I hope that is helpful as an answer.

We would only get into a question of strength of claim if there were directly oppositional views by different nations, and one of them was expressing that their interest had greater priority because their claim was greater. But that is, frankly, a situation that doesn’t arise in this case very often. We don’t seek to make it an issue.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. This is actually just a question for you, as I recognize that the bill is divided into certain clauses, but each of the parks is not a particular clause, so some of them are kind of conjoined. We also don’t have an intro section of any nature.

Some of the questions that we’ll be asking at this point might…. We’ll try and keep them as broad as possible and as applicable to all of the different parks, but if we could be so indulged just to have some examples from some of the individual parks, it will save us time when we get to those, if that’s all right.

The Chair: Yes, exactly.

R. Merrifield: Perfect, thank you.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. That does lead me into the general approach that the ministry is using, which is, I thought, a very helpful description.

[3:25 p.m.]

Another point that I noted in my second reading speech, which I did want to come back and ask the minister about, is when I look at the debate at second reading from the last consideration of the very similar bill last fall, the minister at that time referred to compliance with any particular…. Let me just get the right quote here.

Basically, the minister was referring to the amendments that will enable the government to continue moving forward with the ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples, in that case, by renaming two parks to include their place names and that it would be an important step in implementing UNDRIP, of course. But there would be a need, as well, to consider the compliance of this requirement in terms of how it meets the new requirements under the declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples.

To the minister: in the ongoing work that is being done across ministries and with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation on the action plan, have there been any further requirements that the minister sees in terms of how to address the general approach to protected areas?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for the question. I think it’s fair to say that in all of our consultation processes in the ministry, generally, and in B.C. Parks, consistent with principle 6 of the ten draft principles that guide B.C.’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, we aim to secure the consent of Indigenous nations. That’s the guiding principle, and to that extent, we think that our consultation process, therefore, is aligned with DRIPA.

Further to that, we know from a range of government-to-government agreements that are reached with individual nations — sometimes with groups of nations — guided by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that issues related to parks and conservancies may or may not be identified specifically by those nations as areas in which they wish to engage or they wish to have prioritized. When we’re brought into those discussions by MIRR, we enter into them fully and in good faith with those nations that wish to do that.

I would also say that there is a range of things that B.C. Parks has been doing over the years that we think are advancing reconciliation with nations as well as consistent with DRIPA. Some of these began before our government took office, some of them are new, and some of them are continuations of processes that have been going on for a while.

We, first of all, have partnered with a number of First Nations on many projects that will advance our common interest in stewardship management and appreciation of parks. We also have an ongoing priority to try to better integrate Indigenous knowledge, values and interests into parks planning and management processes as we work together. As part of that, in our student ranger program hiring and in some of our pandemic recovery hiring, we placed a priority on hiring Indigenous youth that we hope will choose a career in B.C. Parks on an ongoing basis.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We’ve completed over 150 collaborative projects with Indigenous partners to support shared stewardship interests: interpretive signage, collaboration with Indigenous guardians, increased cultural tourism and other education opportunities, a number of which, but not all, have been supported by the B.C. Parks licence plate program.

We also recently developed a visitor use management strategy with the Lil’wat and N’Quatqua Nations and developed interpretive cultural signage and presence at Joffre Lakes Park in support of the strategy.

I’ve mentioned the renamings, I think, during my second reading remarks. Other renamings are Saysutshun, formerly known as Newcastle Island Marine Provincial Park; Sxótsaqel, which I mentioned, formerly known as Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park; and ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, formerly known as John Dean Provincial Park, now known by both names. I did mention, earlier, the new conservancies.

Finally — my final example, in any case, although there are more — on the central coast, we’ve been working with Kitasoo/Xai’xais and collaboratively developed a bear-viewing operational plan for part of the Fiordland conservancy. It contains objectives for enhanced protection of grizzly bears and cultural values, but it also captures a significant economic interest for the Kitasoo/Xai’xais and has resulted, among other things, in two Indigenous guardians residing in the area for up to two months a year to implement the operational plan.

M. Lee: I appreciate the breadth of the response from the minister. It does come back to the two areas that I just wanted to ask to get a further response from.

[3:35 p.m.]

Again, looking at this bill in terms of protected areas of the province and recognizing where the government is on their draft action plan to implement DRIPA…. We talked earlier about the co-development and collaboration, cooperation of stewardship and the environment and land resources with Indigenous peoples and communities.

I noted, as well, in my second reading speech that when I look at the annual report…. Of course, we expect another one coming soon, but the last one, which was for 2020-2021, chose to have the government focus on particular articles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. This one in particular, which I cited previously, was article 29.1, which says: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programs for Indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.”

And, really, now that we’re into this — 26 months after UNDRIP was passed in this House, unanimously — the level of clarity in the work that this government is doing to work with First Nations as to implement the articles, the approach that the government is reporting on both is by way of an action plan, which I cited earlier, and now specific adherence or compliance with specific articles of UNDRIP.

I think it’s useful that the minister, in his response previously, talked about a number of examples as to how the government is working with First Nations to meet, in their view, article 29.1. But I would say that as the minister listed out all of the approaches, of course, I’m sure that they’re under the 100 First Nations that are referred to in the annual report. The minister may say that there are more than 100 First Nations that are actually engaged in this work, of the 203 in this province.

But I just ask: again, recognizing the confines of this bill and where we are in progress in implementing and providing certainty to the implementation of UNDRIP in this province, where is the ministry currently in terms of the other work that’s necessary to meet article 29.1? And what other steps is the ministry taking to ensure compliance with that article?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the best way to answer the member’s question is to say that government engages through a variety of fora with nations on identifying interests, identifying significant issues that form part of reconciliation or shared prosperity or other agreements. These discussions, when they touch on land use or conservation or resources, typically involve a number of ministries with MIRR, Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, negotiators leading the discussions, and we participate in them to that extent.

No such issues came up with respect to any of the amendments in this bill, so in the context of Committee of the Whole on this bill, there is no real answer that can be given. Further, it is not a question that is largely well answered by this ministry in isolation.

[3:40 p.m.]

But having said that, I would invite the member to return to revisit that issue during spending estimates, Committee of Supply, in terms of the ministry’s overall operations.

M. Lee: I certainly will do that. I will take that opportunity.

Particularly, we are awaiting the sharing of the actual action plan. It’s been 26 months now, so hopefully…. We understand from the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that the action plan is still coming. We’ll see that shortly, I’m sure. But this is the reason why, in the midst of dealing with bills in the absence of the action plan, we are having to address in what way is the government actually meeting what was set out in DRIPA.

Let me just ask a few other questions, if I may. Just in terms of…. Talking again of the 14 areas that are named here under this Bill 3, were any of these protected areas, with the work that was done with First Nations, involving any particular economic interests by Indigenous communities or First Nations in these protected areas?

Hon. G. Heyman: In the consultations we conducted on these amendments, no nation raised a specific economic interest. There were, as I pointed out…. Let me use the Osoyoos Indian Band. The discussion over two years resulted in support for the amendment and agreement to further explore operations for collaboration, involvement in park management, which might and could lead to some employment opportunities for members of the nation. But that is just something I am positing as a potential outcome.

M. Lee: Just in terms of these protected areas as well. To the extent that any of these areas involved any private land acquisitions to further the sites, what was the nature of any consultation that was involved with First Nations about those private lands?

Hon. G. Heyman: This is similar, I think, to an earlier question. The answer is that when we purchase private land we inform the nation to see if they have concerns or interests with respect to that land. If we intend to add it to a park, a protected area generally — which is the reason, of course, that we would purchase it — we inform them of that intent, and then we proceed to discuss it. Sometimes the discussion is short. Sometimes it takes place over a period of years to ensure that we’ve fully canvassed the interests and ultimately reflect those interests in a consent agreement.

[3:45 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: I’d just like to piggyback or go down the same road as my colleague here for Vancouver-Langara went down. That’s just in consultation. It seems like there was a fairly high level of consultation with First Nations. I can respect that.

Mine’s on a different type of claim, and that’s mineral claims and other types of tenures that could be severed by the expanding of these boundaries. And that’s on access to adjacent Crown lands, mineral claims, tenures, those kind of things.

I guess the question is: what level of consultation was delivered to stakeholders and user groups whose access to tenures, claims and recreational opportunities may have their access severed by these boundary changes?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. When the ministry and B.C. Parks purchase private land with the intent to add it to a park, first of all, there has been, obviously, an assessment and a prioritization done prior, to identify areas that are both significantly important for either ecological or recreational considerations or both. That’s how they’re prioritized. But part of that would also be to consider what other community or economic opportunities exist.

When the land is purchased, an assessment is done of whether there might be an impact potentially on economic activity or on recreational access. Where it is reasonable to do so, which is most cases, we will adjust park boundaries to accommodate a legitimate interest that doesn’t defeat the purposes for which we are looking to make additions to the park in the first place.

A good example of that is Hole-in-the-Wall Park addition where we worked with the mineral tenure holder, who voluntarily surrendered their tenure in order to allow that to be added to the park and without significant potential for defeating the purposes of adding it to the park.

We also identified that there was a forest service road that was needed for some economic activity, and we ensured that the boundary did not encompass that forest service road to prevent access.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for the response. So a certain amount of diligence was put into notifying stakeholders, I’m taking it. How was that process delivered? Was it notification? Did the ministry look at access areas inside the expanded areas that they were going to encompass with the new pieces of park that they were going to put in? Did they notice the access areas and look at claims outside of adjacent areas?

How was the process delivered to notify people that were going to be impacted by, perhaps, these boundary changes?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Where we identify an economic interest — for instance, a mineral tenure holder in an adjacent area or a community interest — we will notify the community or the company or the rights holder directly and invite discussion around any potential impacts they see and work with them to address them.

T. Shypitka: Does the minister have any list or any record of who is engaged with what recreational groups, whether it’s snowmobiling clubs or cross-country skiers or anybody like that? Is there a list of stakeholders that the ministry engaged with that I could have?

Hon. G. Heyman: We do have those records, but we’ll have to go and get them. If it’s acceptable to the member, we’ll simply provide them.

T. Shypitka: I’ll pass it over to my colleague here.

R. Merrifield: How are the stakeholders identified? I know there’s a question of who the stakeholders are. How are they identified? Are there any public notifications that go out for groups that might not be indicated by the ministry?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think we should start a step back. I mentioned earlier that we have an ongoing list of areas that we’ve prioritized for purchase to add, because they have significant recreational or ecological value, for addition to parks should they become available at a fair price. We have an annual budget to address that, as well as the assistance of different outside organizations with interests — conservation organizations who have been, more and more, coming forward to partner with us on these things, as well as the B.C. Parks Foundation.

With private land acquisition, we will look to see what…. Sorry. Just to back up, in the process of that prioritization, we would certainly look at community recreational use currently versus the value of adding them to the parks and protected area system. That would form part of the prioritization.

In terms of the acquisition of private lands, we will identify, based on community knowledge and discussion, where there may be an economic interest, and then we would reach out and follow up on that. We don’t typically give public notification when we purchase private land and are considering adding it to a park, to invite a broad public comment. We will have, in the prioritization process, identified current uses and different user groups and have a sense of the community’s relationship to that land and their interests in it.

R. Merrifield: I understood, from the conversation that was going on, the questions that my colleague was asking on the Indigenous process of consultation. I guess I’m moving now to the non-Indigenous process of consultation and how that is embarked upon.

[3:55 p.m.]

What I’m hearing is that there is sort of a general look at the property as to who might have interests and historical uses of the property. There’s no formal public consultation or formal public notice process.

What does the consultation process look like with the potential stakeholders or potential affected groups on the park acquisitions that we’re making, or amendments?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I mentioned we typically don’t consult broadly, other than to ensure that we’ve identified impacts on economic interests in adjacent property when we purchase private land. But to put it in perspective, we’re talking about private land purchases. When the land is owned privately, no one has any say in how it’s used outside of existing environmental laws, regulations and land use prohibitions.

When we purchase the private land, we’re purchasing it to make it available for public use and access or, in some cases, protection of ecological values that may limit some public use or access. If we didn’t purchase it, a private party would, and again, it would not be available to the public.

R. Merrifield: Are there studies done on these different properties looking for anything like future liabilities or geological aspects or geotechnical aspects?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is yes. When we are considering land for purchase, we will look at any potential liabilities. For instance, I’ll use this as an example. If there is any indication at all of a history of past use that could create an environmental concern, we will ensure that’s evaluated so we know what we would be in for if we purchased it or if turning away from that particular purchase is indicated.

R. Merrifield: Now I’ll take the indulgence to actually go to the specific parks, if we might, and start working our way through them, starting with the Big White Mountain Ecological Reserve, one of my personal favourites. What is the significance of moving the establishment of the Big White Mountain Ecological Reserve from that of an OIC to schedule A of the act?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member is that there is no difference to how the Big White Mountain Ecological Reserve will be managed. Although this could also have been done by amendment to the OIC, part of the result of changing the description of the reserve to the official plan is to be more precise, specific and accurate, as I described in my remarks during second reading.

It is our goal, ultimately, to move all ecological reserves into schedule A of the act so that they are covered by the legislation and not by OIC.

R. Merrifield: Excellent.

The original OIC from 1972 indicated that the Big White Mountain Ecological Reserve was approximately 2,720 acres, which is equivalent to about 1,100 hectares. The reserve being established under schedule A is now only 953 hectares.

In reference to the minister’s accuracy, my question is: why is the area smaller now?

Hon. G. Heyman: There are two reasons for the difference in the size. One of them is, which I’ve already addressed, that the official plan using GIS mapping is more accurate. But the other reason is to correct an error. There was a part of the Big White ski development that was included erroneously in the boundaries when they were initially established. It was never intended to exclude them from use as part of the ski resort, and they’ve always been used for that. So we’re making that correction.

R. Merrifield: I see that the removal of approximately four hectares of the 47 hectares is part of that southwest corner that the minister referenced just now. Am I to assume that the rest of it, then, would be the GIS mapping changes?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s correct. That’s why we are doing our best to move toward official plans and GIS mapping, which is far more accurate than descriptions that were used in the past.

R. Merrifield: Absolutely. Agreed.

Also, just referencing back to one of my earlier questions, which is on the timing of when these come into being…. It was referenced in one of the briefings that…. Sorry, in the only briefing; I shouldn’t say one of, like there were many. In the only briefing, this was actually a lot adjustment that dates back to 1972. What takes from 1972 to 2022 in terms of adjusting that four-hectare section?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer really is that we have to prioritize, within the work we do to bring amendments forward to the House, things that are of a more urgent nature. This was not perceived to be one until such time as Big White flagged for us that they were planning to make some changes to their use structure, and it was a good time for us to create an official plan and correct the error of the past.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the answer to the question.

Moving on to Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological Reserve. I understand that this is a movement of the boundary because of a necessary access to the water source that’s next to it or adjacent to it — and dependent upon. Are there further provisions for other lot adjustments, if necessary, like Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological Reserve?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is that if we became aware of similar situations that could be addressed by a land purchase and a boundary adjustment, or even potentially a land purchase and a new ecological reserve to protect those kinds of important features, we would have to look at the opportunity for purchase, assess it with our priority criteria in light of what we can bring forward in any given year, and then move forward with it if it corresponded with those criteria and the opportunity arose.

R. Merrifield: Well, in this particular situation, it’s actually the province giving back or moving the land back to the private owner. I believe that it actually decreases the Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological Reserve by about 0.2 hectares — and understanding that it’s actually because of the movement of the creek or the water source that this neighbouring property is dependent upon.

I guess I’ll go back to just restate my question, which is: are there further provisions for lot adjustments or removal of park space in order to actually protect the, I guess, rights or water sources for other properties that are located within reserves?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for correcting my misunderstanding of her question. The answer to the question, as I now understand it, is yes. If we were aware of similar circumstances, we would certainly entertain measures to address them if they were appropriate and did not create negative impacts on a protected area.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

[4:10 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: It’s all of the individual parks that I’m trying to go through, so I appreciate the patience and indulgence.

Now we are on to the Blue River Black Spruce Park. Obviously, this is a private acquisition. My questions on this one are centred around the nature of the acquisition, as well as the nature of the consultation with neighbouring properties. What measures are being undertaken to be ready for these types of acquisitions when they are made available?

Hon. G. Heyman: Generally, our staff would be keeping an eye on areas that might be potentially inside a park boundary but are not included as part of the park for historical reasons or private ownership reasons, or areas adjacent that have significant potential as recreational or ecological additions to our protected area system. Then they will keep an eye on opportunities to make those purchases.

For instance, if there is some indication that a landowner is interested in selling, if an owner passes away and there is some reason to believe the heirs may be interested or, in some cases, we’re approached by landowners who say: “I know this has been an area that is of interest to the community. It’s next to the park, and I’d be willing to sell if we can agree on a fair price.” In some cases, people will offer a piece of property for sale at below market value, because they actually want to make that contribution as part of their personal legacy.

R. Merrifield: I hope that the minister is appreciative of the advertising that I just allowed to take place there for all of those that own properties and want to use them for good.

But I also wanted to just make note that I apologize, I did not let clause 2 pass before moving on to the Blue River Black Spruce Park. If we wanted to go back to clause 2 and then I’ll continue my questions.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

R. Merrifield: One of the neighbouring or adjacent pieces of infrastructure is actually the CN Rail. My question is: how was CN Rail contacted and notified?

Hon. G. Heyman: We would not have contacted CN Rail, because the land purchased did not include the railway right-of-way.

R. Merrifield: Understanding that it doesn’t include the right-of-way, it is adjacent to the right-of-way. My question, again, is on the stakeholder groups that are within the community; i.e. adjacent neighbours that might be affected by the potential purchase. I’ll just ask for the record: there was no notification or consultation done with CN Rail. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s correct.

R. Merrifield: Perfect. Moving on to the nature of this acquisition.

[4:15 p.m.]

Because it was a private acquisition, the minister had referenced earlier on that there is a fair market value that’s established. My curiosity is around how the fair market value is established. How are British Columbians assured that they’re getting the best value for that taxpayer dollar?

Hon. G. Heyman: We have an appraisal done of the property by an independent third-party appraiser that’s governed by the rules and guidelines of their association. They conduct a review of adjacent comparable properties to help establish the fair market value, including any differences between the property in question and those other adjacent properties. We use that appraisal as the basis of our negotiations for purchase.

R. Merrifield: So is the value based on fair market for park use, or is it for highest and best use?

Hon. G. Heyman: The appraisal is conducted on the basis of, as any market value appraisal would be, on the highest and best use.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you very much.

Moving on to the Christina Lake Park. Understanding that this is a foreshore addition as well as…. There was a Kootenay Lake Park addition as well. We’ll start with the Christina Lake foreshore addition. My question is what fisheries studies were undertaken on this piece of foreshore?

Hon. G. Heyman: No fisheries evaluation was conducted. The reason for the purchase was to manage recreational activity on this particular sliver of foreshore.

R. Merrifield: It’s like the minister was reading my mind. My next question is: what types of recreational activities will be encouraged or allowed?

Hon. G. Heyman: Christina Lake Park is essentially a beach access park, so the recreational activities would be lounging, reading books, hanging out, swimming. There are no boat launches, but conceivably canoes or kayaks could be carried down.

R. Merrifield: That does make sense then, because my next question would be…. I’ll broaden it then to any foreshore extensions. Where there are recreational activities involving motorized boats and activities, etc., are there wind and wave studies produced?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. There’s a history of recreational use in the area, as the member knows. We purchased the area so we could manage the recreational use in a manner that’s consistent with the public interest, and under the Park Act, for example, obnoxious or dangerous activity. But we don’t do wave and wind studies.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Obviously, just understanding the sensitive nature of aquatic species and also just the movement of waves, etc., are there other parks that you would do a sensitive wind and wave study at all? Or are these never undertaken for foreshore extensions?

Hon. G. Heyman: We wouldn’t do a wind and wave study as part of a decision to purchase, but if we were considering an aquatic or foreshore park — for instance, making a capital expenditure like a boat launch or a dock — we would then likely do a wind and wave study to ensure that we were addressing any issues that might arise.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I guess just no vigorous swimming either in order to create those winds and waves.

Moving on to the Kootenay Lake Park, I noted that there were individual lot lines within the park boundary and, in fact, extending past the park boundary. I did note from the briefing that was received that these are historical boundaries and really are not lots, per se. But my question is such that we’re following right now Davis Creek. Is there any appetite or why wouldn’t we extend further and just take up those lots that are around it on the foreshore to prevent it from ever becoming actual lots?

Hon. G. Heyman: The amendment was made to address a boundary description error and also to address the fact that the creek had changed direction, but the boundaries of the park are currently south of the creek. I think it’s south. Yes, it’s south of the creek. There is no plan currently to expand to the other side of the creek.

R. Merrifield: This might be maybe too technical in nature for the committee here, but understanding that it is south of the creek, why was PCL A and PCL B of block 33 omitted? Why wouldn’t that have been a natural extension right to the highway?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not entirely sure if the member is asking why those weren’t originally included in the park or why they weren’t included in this amendment. The answer, in some ways, no matter what the question is, is the same: we’d have to look at the records.

R. Merrifield: If it’s possible to get, even at a later date, just an understanding of why those two were omitted, that would be great.

We’ll move on now to Naikoon Park. I know that my colleague earlier was trying to ascertain what sort of a comprehensive planning process had been done overall. In my notes from the briefing, I actually talked about the land use planning of this entire area. Was the ministry involved in that land use planning exercise, or was the planning exercise for these particular conservancies and the park?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, the answer to the member about an opportunity to explore the reasons as to why we did or didn’t include other pieces of property in that park is: yes, any time. In fact, to any member who wishes information with respect to B.C. Parks or other activities of the Ministry of Environment, just contact my office, and we’d be happy to arrange a briefing.

With respect to this particular question, the ministry as well as FLNRORD, as well as MIRR, as well as the Haida were all engaged in the land use planning.

R. Merrifield: What was the planning process, then, from this area? There was the involvement of each of the different ministries. How was that planning process undertaken? Did it just include and encompass this area, or was it a broader scope or scale?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not entirely certain if the member is referring to a management plan for Naikoon Park or for the entire area, but if it’s Naikoon Park, that plan was developed in 1999, and it was developed in consultation with the Haida and the surrounding community members.

R. Merrifield: As noted, I was actually referring to the land use planning, and I was asking the question as to whether or not it was encompassing just Naikoon Park or whether it had a larger land base that was associated with it.

Hon. G. Heyman: There’s been a land use plan done for the entirety of Haida Gwaii — developed by the Haida and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — that resulted in 400,000 hectares of protected areas in Haida Gwaii.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you to the minister for the answer. My understanding is that Naikoon Park is part of this larger land use plan that was done and undertaken by the Haida. Was the larger land use plan also undertaken in 1999?

Hon. G. Heyman: Chair, first of all, I just want to correct an inaccuracy in my previous answer. I said that the land use plan was done in 1999. That was actually the Naikoon Park management plan that was done in 1999. The land use plan was done, I think, around 2008 and encompassed all of Haida Gwaii as well as a broader area of the north coast. Naikoon Park pre-existed the development of that plan and was taken into consideration as that plan was developed.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. That makes perfect sense. I am especially curious about the process with the Haida Nation, as it seems like it’s resulted in some excellent work, especially when it comes to the ease with which the consultation process was able to be completed and to the relationship that was established, which the minister spoke of earlier. Would this be a process that could be embarked on with other nations as well, in terms of the land use planning around some of these parks or conservancies?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Broadly speaking, yes. Land use planning would be undertaken by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, and part of the land use planning process would be to consider areas appropriate for protection.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to Valhalla. I think I’m saying that correctly. I’ve had to say a lot of different names today — trying to memorize them all.

On this one, is it correct that this was a private landowner, and it was a donation that received a tax receipt?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. Valhalla was a property purchase, I believe, for $175,000 in 2020. The donation and the resultant tax receipt was Edge Hills.

R. Merrifield: Thank you. I stand corrected.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to Edge Hills, Edge Hills was the one that was the gift of land. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: That is correct.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. I just want to commend the landowner for the generous donation and also ask about the mechanics. In our briefing, it was indicated that it’s a federal tax donation receipt that comes. My curiosity is just around federal versus provincial tax credits.

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, part of the recognition with a tax receipt would be for charitable donations. I’m not going to pretend to interpret the Canada Revenue Agency Act or rules, but I believe that when something is accepted as a legitimate charitable donation, there is a corresponding — I believe, but I’m not certain — provincial credit as well.

There’s also a federal program that is federal only that’s called the ecogift program, and that allows relief from capital gains when land is donated.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you so much for the information.

Are there any considerations for provincial grant programs of this nature at this time?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think that’s a question the member will have to ask the Minister of Finance.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister. I certainly will, on your behalf.

[4:40 p.m.]

Moving on to Gladstone Park, this has quite a few additional aspects that were added on this particular one. Were all of these additions purchases that were made?

Hon. G. Heyman: These additions compromise six hectares of private land that was purchased and 16 hectares of Crown land that we’re adding.

R. Merrifield: Because my colleague for Vancouver-Langara thoroughly canvassed all of the aspects of the Indigenous consultation that was done, I won’t go there any further. I think that we did a good job of understanding and ascertaining the seven different nations that were involved in that consultative process.

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague for Peace River South.

M. Bernier: First of all, thank you to the minister. He’ll know I want to speak to the Hole-in-the-Wall. I just have a couple of maybe more not-too-technical but some clarification questions that I wouldn’t mind just getting on the record.

As the minister knows, I brought this forward here probably a couple years ago. We had to go through a process to get it to the stage that we are today, so I thank the minister and his staff for the work that they’ve done on this. I think it’s about 14 hectares, if I understood it correctly — the addition for the Hole-in-the-Wall Park.

Just for the record, it’s my understanding — the minister, when he gets up, can correct me if I’m wrong — that this is correcting, basically…. I don’t know if error is the right word — maybe an oversight — years ago, when the park was created. It was my understanding that it was supposed to maybe encompass a little bit larger of an area than it did, and this is a correction.

But where I really want to maybe dissect a little bit into this is one of the reasons why it came to me to begin with. I was unaware of this. I’m not sure if the minister was, when he took over and was looking at this. But what I was unaware of was that the park boundary should have or could have been moved into a little bit different area.

The reason why it came to my attention was because of concerns from people who utilize this area for obvious reasons, not only for the beauty that it has. The unique geological formation that we have in this area brings a lot of tourists to the area, a lot of back-country campers, hikers, etc., who go to this very pristine and very exciting area to see.

But the reason why it was brought to my attention was that about 250, 300 metres away from the Hole-in-the-Wall, the government, this government, gave a permit to an organization, a partnership, to have a limestone quarry. The reason, again, that I’m flagging that is because the reason why it came to my attention is that here we have this pristine provincial park area, and on the border of it we have D8 cats, backhoes and excavators digging up along the side of the river, about 300 metres away.

So I guess my first question on this is: with this 14 hectares that’s been added, is that 14 hectares going to now be encompassing the area where there was — or is — ground disturbance taking place, right on the edge of the park boundary? Or was the park boundary moved on a different side of the river that’s still going to allow this quarry, this limestone operation, to stay in operation?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I want to commend the member for his advocacy for this addition over time. I believe that you questioned me about it in Committee of Supply at one point, and I think that’s when I first became aware of it, actually.

The park boundary, however, has only been adjusted to reflect the initial error and to include the ecological feature that was meant to be included but was not. But it has not been extended to include the limestone quarry.

M. Bernier: Okay, I appreciate the answer — the candidness on that. I mean, obviously, one of the concerns that’s being raised in the area is the fact that we have this development. I mean, I’m sure that the people who own and operate the quarry wouldn’t agree with me on that specific side. But from a land use perspective, obviously, the people who have been calling on this protection have been very worried about that.

I do understand the technicalities and the differences, though, between the allowance for the permitting for this in comparison to that. But, I guess, one of the things with the answer that the minister just gave: have there been any access changes to the area with the park boundary expansion? Did that encompass any of the…? It’s called the Sukunka forest service road, I believe. I’m not sure if that’s the government’s term or if that’s a local term, but that’s what we refer to it as: the Sukunka forest service road.

So with the expansion of these 14 hectares, does it encompass any of that service road? Is there going to be any cut off to access now to the Hole-in-the-Wall on that service road, because it’s going to be, now, within a park boundary? Or is the forest service road still outside the park boundary aspect, which means that not only can the people developing the quarry still have full access, but then, also, the residents who use it, as I say, for sightseeing and camping and hiking opportunities — will they still have full access to the area as well?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question of clarification. The Sukunka forest service road has been excluded from the park and the park boundary adjustments, so there should be no change to access.

R. Merrifield: Why would there have been this previous omission on this park with the jewel of the spring?

Hon. G. Heyman: That is an excellent question from the member and one to which we have no answer that can be definitive, other than that we presume it was simply inaccurate mapping.

R. Merrifield: How would we be able to avoid such mistakes in the future?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a good question, and the answer is that we have much better geographic information systems and mapping now than was available previously, and we are using it.

R. Merrifield: Are there any environmental liabilities from the mineral lease or extraction that’s going on right next to or adjacent to the park?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not aware — and neither is my ministry — of any environmental liabilities on the site. The limestone quarrying activity would be through the Mines Act, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, and would be permitted accordingly and have appropriate conditions in place. I suspect that the member could get more information from that ministry.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park, what was the purpose of this addition? For whatever reason, I don’t seem to have the notes on it from our briefing — but the actual purpose of these extensions.

Hon. G. Heyman: The purpose was to increase connectivity in the park for species. It’s a largely undeveloped addition. It builds on a previous acquisition that also increased connectivity. There’s important habitat for mule deer and grizzly bear as well as 450 metres of lakeshore. So it will enable and improve protection of adjacent lake values consistent with the Upland Park area as well as allowing appropriate — what’s the word that I want? — movement of wildlife.

R. Merrifield: So was that lot…? It’s kind of like a skinny finger that connects the foreshore area and the foreshore aspect of the park to this very large park behind it. Is that the only access between those two aspects of this park currently?

Hon. G. Heyman: Currently, it is. The rest is private land.

R. Merrifield: So this was indicated as a connecting point for wildlife or species. Is it also a connecting point for recreation purposes or for humans?

Hon. G. Heyman: There currently are no facilities, recreational or otherwise, to welcome visitors to that conservancy area.

T. Shypitka: I wanted to ask a qualifying question just to follow up on the member for Peace River South on the access to the limestone quarry. The minister stated that the access won’t change. But now that it’s incorporated into the park, will the land use change? Meaning it will still be allowed for quarry trucks, rock trucks to be rolling down the forest service road in the middle of a park. So will the land use change? The access is still there, but will the land use change?

Hon. G. Heyman: The existing uses of the road won’t change.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to Okanagan Mountain Park now. My Bernese mountain dogs thank you for the….

The Chair: If I might, Member, that would be under clause 5.

R. Merrifield: Thank you.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

R. Merrifield: My Bernese mountain dogs thank you for the extension of this park.

My question…. We’ve already canvassed the Indigenous consultation aspects of this park, because understanding how sensitive that is in our area, I do appreciate how much attention was given to that aspect and that consultation process and the fact that it did take the amount of time that it did.

[4:55 p.m.]

On the road management aspect of it, are there roads that go through Okanagan Mountain Park?

Hon. G. Heyman: No, there are no roads that go through Okanagan Mountain Park.

R. Merrifield: My next question is: how was the city of Kelowna consulted on those particular lots or on the planning process of the park acquisition?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The regional district of Central Okanagan was contacted and did not raise any concerns. The donation was negotiated as part of a subdivision agreement between the property owner and the regional district of Central Okanagan.

R. Merrifield: Fantastic. Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Moving on to Omineca Park, this is a very complicated….

The Chair: If I might, Member. Sorry. Again, we need to pass clause 5.

R. Merrifield: Is it clause 6? Oh my goodness. Okay. So no, not yet.

The Chair: Not yet. We’re still on clause 5? Okay.

Member on clause 5.

R. Merrifield: On clause 5, why is the date June 22, I believe, of ’22 for this bill to take effect? Hold on one second. Why is this amendment coming into force — sorry — on June 15, 2022?

Hon. G. Heyman: To the member, the reason that the provision won’t come into force until June 15, 2022, is to provide adequate time for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and B.C. Parks to complete the necessary legal transfer agreements for the old road that is being added to the park. The land needs to be transferred from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure before it can be included in the park.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

R. Merrifield: On Omineca Park. It’s a very complicated park with lots of lots, still, and people that reside within it. On this particular park, what is the ultimate plan for it? Is it to purchase all of these individual aspects that still remain outside of the park boundaries, or is it to allow that to continue indefinitely?

Hon. G. Heyman: There is no plan or intent currently to add any of the remaining private properties to the park, but if we became aware of a willing seller, we would then do an assessment.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My last question on clause 6 is: why is this amendment coming into force by regulation?

[5:00 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member will know, we’re also cancelling part of the Omineca Protected Area at the same time. That must be done by OIC, so we are synchronizing the two actions so they take place simultaneously.

R. Merrifield: That concludes my questions for today. I just want to thank the Chair for all of the indulgences, as well as the minister for making this such as easy process for the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2022.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to thank members for their questions as well as their interest in these additions to the parks and protected areas. I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I call continued Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for a few minutes.

The House recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

B. D’Eith: Great. I rise to continue my speech to the throne. I have 18 minutes left, so I’m very pleased to be able to continue to speak to the throne.

Just to remind people who were listening before, I was able to thank a lot of people early on and also talk about COVID and relief and recovery, particularly around the arts and culture and creative industries which I’m parliamentary secretary for.

On Monday, during our private member’s time, I had a chance to address housing and housing affordability, so I won’t address that here. I would encourage everybody, if they are interested, to listen to my speech on housing and the wonderful 30-point plan we’re doing for housing affordability in this province.

Now, when the B.C. NDP government took office in 2017, we had a promise to improve services, make life more affordable and build an economy that works for everyone. Instead of working for people at the top, like B.C. Liberals, we placed people at the centre of our policies.

I’d like to start by talking about affordability. There are a lot of things that are worth looking at that happened since we took office in 2017, and I really think that looking forward and looking at the throne speech, it’s very important to also look at where we’ve come from.

One of the things that happened early on was the tolls were removed from the Golden Ears and Port Mann Bridges, and that saved people up to $1,500 a year. MSP premiums were eliminated — biggest tax cut in B.C. history — saving people and families up to $1,800 a year. Changes to ICBC, with average savings of over $490 a year, and for some young people, a lot more than that.

Child care. Some families are saving up to $19,000 a year. Just looking at my own riding in Maple Ridge–Mission, there’s been a total child care investment of nearly $27 million. Parents, through fee reductions and benefits, have saved $16 million.

Of course, during the pandemic, an amazing program, the B.C. child opportunity benefit, was launched on October 1, 2020. This is a tax-free, monthly payment to families with children right up to the age of 18, because we all know — I have five children — that kids don’t stop costing a lot of money before the age of 18. I think they cost more money. At any rate, that’s $1,600 for a family’s first child, $1,000 for a second child and $800 for each subsequent child.

Now, if you take a family with small children and you look at all of these affordability measures, that’s $25,000 a year in savings for a family with small children. These are affordability measures that are not only incredible but transformative.

[5:10 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberals have elected a new leader with Kevin Falcon. Let’s look at his track record and look at the track record of the B.C. Liberals on this. What would their leader do?

Well, firstly, as Transportation Minister, Kevin Falcon actually was the one who put the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, costing families up to $1,500 a year. He was very upset about the tolls coming off, saying it was a terrible public policy. Well, I can tell you that the folks in my riding don’t think it’s terrible policy at all. They’re extremely happy about that decision.

MSP premiums. When he was the Health Minister in 2010, it was increased by 6 percent. Then, when he was the Health Minister in 2012, it was again increased by 4 percent. We got rid of MSP premiums. They would have kept MSP premiums and increased them.

ICBC. Again, as Finance Minister in 2012, Kevin Falcon increased car insurance rates by 11 percent. In the same budget, he planned to raid a half a billion dollars over three years, so ICBC, at that time, was forecast to remit $497 million of its excess optional capital to consolidated revenue. This is what lit the famous ICBC dumpster fire. He’s directly responsible for that, as is the B.C. Liberal Party.

Again, the changes that we’ve made are transformative, and they’re going to save folks a lot of money. They are saving folks a lot of money and made a huge difference in people’s lives.

Child care. When our government was elected, there was a shortage of child care. Child care was in crisis. Again, these were choices made by the now leader of the B.C. Liberals when he was at the cabinet table. What we’re going to do is, by the end of this year, reduce the average cost by 50 percent for parents of kids under six, in partnership with the federal government.

We’re making progress in this year’s throne speech, and it outlines further measures we’re making towards sustainable, affordable, quality, universal child care in the province of British Columbia. Another thing we’re doing in this throne speech is moving the ministry over to the Ministry of Education so that K to 12 and preschool can be aligned.

The bottom line is our government, our B.C. NDP government, has made life more affordable for people in British Columbia in a dramatic fashion. The B.C. Liberals, under their new leadership, would cut taxes to the rich and take these away — $25,000 for our young family; B.C. Liberals, zero dollars. Put that in perspective.

Making life more affordable is really important to what we’re doing, but another part of affordability is the opposite side: our ability to make more money. Of course, we’ve seen wages lift in this province even during the pandemic, which is amazing.

One of the things that we’ve done is we were one of the lowest, in terms of minimum wage, and now we’re the highest at $15.20. In this throne speech, we’re committed to increasing that minimum wage to the rate of inflation so that people who have been lifted out of poverty from our changes will continue to be able to make a reasonable living.

Reconciliation is very, very fundamental to what we have done. I can honestly say, and I’m sure members on all sides of this House can say, that when we enacted the DRIPA legislation, bringing UNDRIP into our legislation unanimously, was a momentous and important moment in our legislative history. I think everyone in this chamber agrees to that.

But part of that is you can put things in writing, but you really have to act. It’s one thing to say it. It’s another thing to do it. That’s why this new ministry in the throne speech, which will…. It’s a ministry in regards to the steward of our lands and resources. The idea here is to enhance our ability to partner in land resource management and recovery with First Nations and to achieve the objectives of economic recovery and economic stewardship.

We’re committed to this reconciliation, but it’s only going to happen through consultation, collaboration and comanagement of lands and resources, as envisioned in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. So this new ministry is very important.

[5:15 p.m.]

Another part. We talked about affordability. We also talked about really important services and improving our services. One of those key areas, as we’ve seen, is health care.

Now, I can say that back at home in Maple Ridge, there have been some amazing things that have happened over the last few years.

We recently added an urgent and primary care centre, a primary care network in cooperation with our division of family practice, and the Maple Ridge school district, district 42, has launched the first integrated child and youth team to support mental health for students in school. We have a Foundry in Maple Ridge that will work in conjunction with this. It is doing amazing work for mental health and addictions for our youth. Another important thing was delivering an MRI to Ridge Meadows Hospital for diagnostics, and this is already having a profound impact for people in my community.

Another important part of our health care system is our community action team. It’s actually 75 members in our community. I want to thank Leslie Billinton, Kim Dumore, Shayna Guichon and everybody on the CAT team. It’s really important. This community action initiative is a cross-section of interest and experience that helps with mental health, addictions and substance use. It’s very, very important to have that on-the-ground experience with people who have lived experience, but also professionals.

We also have First Nations and Métis involved in that, as well as other organizations, so it’s a real wraparound, holistic, great program. I’m very proud of what our CAT team is doing in the community.

In Mission, we also have a primary care network that was developed with the Mission Division of Family Practice. This is a network that utilizes a team-based approach to medicine so that we can connect people with primary care. This includes family physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers, mental health counsellors, physiotherapists, clinical pharmacists and an Elder-in-residence. This model is helping us to connect people to primary care, so, very, very important.

I was so excited that after many, many years of advocacy, we have announced that we’re going to have a CT scanner at Mission hospital. I really wanted to thank the mayor, Paul Horn, Dr. Victoria Lee from Fraser Health, Elizabeth Harris from Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, and Dr. Andrew Edelson, who’s the chair of Mission All Together for Healthcare, — MATH for short.

Incredible effort from everyone in the community, and I wanted to thank the Ministry of Health for stepping up for this important thing. A lot of people in my community haven’t really been able…. They have to go across the bridge to Abbotsford, and as we know, a lot of times people can’t get across bridges with all of the things that have been going on today, so really important.

It’s really important to mention as well the commitment to universal health care and how our province is leading the way to try to move us towards a better split between the federal government and the provincial government. Right now, we pay 80 percent, and it used to be 50-50. I’m really proud of our efforts to work with the other provinces to try to get the feds to step up to the plate on all of this.

I did want to speak briefly about the importance of environment and resilience. CleanBC is well underway, legislating a strong commitment to the carbon reduction targets, and actually legislating that we meet those targets. We have programs for businesses and people to switch to clean energy solutions such as EV charging networks, rebates on heat pumps, which everyone is seeing on television these days and, of course, electric vehicles as well.

Of course, we have to do a lot of work to fight climate change. It’s extremely important. It’s the issue of our age. But also, as we have seen with the heat dome and wildfires and floods, it is also important to adapt and mitigate. We saw what happened with the devastating floods, especially in the Fraser Valley. That’s why I wanted to thank the Minister of Agriculture for all of the work she has done; Mayor Braun, particularly, in Abbotsford; Mayor Horn and Mike Morden in Maple Ridge, who worked tirelessly during the crisis we had in the fall.

[5:20 p.m.]

Also, I thank the Minister of Agriculture and federal Minister Bibeau for the $228 million to support farmers in the area that was affected. This is a good start, and there’s more to come. I think that it’s quite dramatic how everyone has pulled together for these crises.

We need to make sure that when we move forward with infrastructure — I see the Minister of Transportation in the House — it’s really important that we build back better and that when we look at the Coquihalla or other highways, we don’t just build to the standards that are there but really make a concerted effort to make sure they can be resilient and withstand what we, unfortunately, will probably encounter over the coming years in regard to climate change in the world. In addition to that, we’re committed to rapid transit, roads and bridges, and I’m very excited to see the SkyTrain to Langley moving forward.

As far as an economy that works for everybody, we did see disruptions from COVID, of course, and from wildfires and floods, but B.C. remains an economic leader. It’s a core principle we have that people are at the centre of our economy, and it’s really quite amazing that, in the recently announced Labour Market Outlook forecast, there’ll be over one million job openings in the next decade. That’s why it’s so important to see the commitment that we have to post-secondary and trades training — in particular, expansion of red seal certificates.

It’s going to be so important to ensure that skilled labour workers have the skills and credentials to work in the industry. I applaud the work of the Minister of Advanced Education and of the Minister of Labour for this very, very important work to make sure that our workers have not only the skills but the credentials so that they can proudly say, “Look, I’m an expert in this field,” and they can go from different jobs to different jobs and be able to do that.

We’ve also seen the disruptions that supply chains have made globally, and it’s really great to see that the government’s new economic plan will improve the movement of goods in and out of our province and look at a very important sector — which is, of course, agriculture. It’s very important to my neck of the woods — in Maple Ridge, Mission and around the Fraser Valley — about agriculture and agritech.

We can see how some of the new technologies in agriculture will really help us with these supply chains. If we can shrink the supply chains so that we can actually be not only producing but also processing and doing other parts to the whole process, we’ll be able to feed way more people, not only in the Lower Mainland but all around British Columbia. I’m really excited about the work that’s being done in agriculture and, particularly, the agritech sector.

In closing, I just wanted to say that I’m very proud of the work that our government has done in terms of affordability over the last four years. We’ve worked hard to strengthen our services, like health care, like K-to-12 education, like post-secondary. We’ve built hospitals, we’re building schools, and we’re building highways.

We’re doing that work, which not only helps us get around but also helps build our economy. We’re making sure that our economy works for everyone. That includes things like making sure that people who work get paid properly with good wages. We’ve seen the wages increase. We’ve also seen the effects of the minimum wage lifting people out of poverty over the last few years.

Hon. Speaker, I wanted to thank you for letting me speak and finish my speech to the throne. I very much support the words in the throne speech, and I look forward to the next speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to the members that we don’t make reference to who is or is not in the House.

A. Olsen: Thank you so much for the opportunity to respond to the 2022 version of the Speech from the Throne.

I do want to start by acknowledging the incredible team that we have supporting my colleague from Cowichan Valley and me here in the Legislative Assembly with the B.C. Green caucus.

[5:25 p.m.]

I want to acknowledge the incredible team that I have in my constituency, supporting what has been a very busy year, in my constituency office in Sidney, for Saanich North and the Islands.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that we are now a couple of years into the COVID-19 pandemic, and I’ve had the benefit of seeing a government operate prior to the pandemic and now through the pandemic. I think it should be recognized that nothing that is happening in this province now is easy, nor are the decisions that are being made easy decisions to be made.

A lot has been asked of British Columbians over the last 24, 30 months. I’m really grateful that we are where we are right now, and my hope is that we get some relief from COVID-19. I think, as we can see here in British Columbia and across the province, that that relief is going to be greatly needed as the stress of the last few years is wearing, I think, on all of us, wearing on our democratically elected institutions and in our constituencies near and far.

I just want to acknowledge the roles that we play here in this democratic institution and that the divisions that exist in this House — these sides, this side, that side — are manufactured divisions. We are here as representatives elected by our constituents to come and represent one part of 87 parts in this province, the government of the province. While we have a majority government in place right now, I think it’s important to acknowledge that we all play a very important role in the proper functioning of this democratic institution.

For decades, the role of opposition, which is a role that I am in and have been in since being elected, is not a position that is here just to oppose government. The role of the opposition is to ensure that government is accountable. We have, over a matter of hundreds of years, defined these roles and the usefulness of these roles in order to ensure that the government that is elected by the people to come here to Victoria to do work on their behalf is doing it in a straightforward and an honest way.

I take the role of being a member in the opposition very seriously. Not here to just stand and say that everything that’s brought forward by the executive, by the cabinet, is bad, or to unnecessarily draw lines between the partisan interests that exist in this House, but to state very clearly that this House functions when the role of the opposition is focused on ensuring that we’re using the tools that the predecessors of parliaments such as this around the Commonwealth, as they’ve evolved…. We’re using those privileges and those tools that have been afforded us — largely fought for and earned — effectively, and we’re not letting them sit on the sideline.

I think something that we’ve heard an awful lot about are the rights and freedoms that are afforded Canadians and British Columbians. I remember having a conversation with an Elder in my community, about Indigenous rights. I was reminded very promptly that with every right comes a responsibility. I think it’s important that we are focused on our rights, our responsibilities and our freedoms.

I wanted to just leave this now in this response to the debate on the Speech from the Throne, to recognize that those responsibilities are not only in this Legislature. They’re also a reflection of our duty to the public, and the public to each other as neighbours, as friends and family, people that we are and have been close with.

[5:30 p.m.]

We have a responsibility to each other. We’ve seen decades of policies that have been very intensely focused on the rights of individuals, separating us from the collective responsibility for each other and saying that these…. To elevate the individual above all else and to say that we are not benefiting from those policies and from those narratives when we face a public health crisis like a pandemic….

Ultimately, what the focus needs to be on is the responsibility that we have to each other. That’s what we hope the public health measures are able to achieve: the balancing of the responsibilities that we have to each other, living alongside one another in a peaceful and secure society.

I just want to add, I guess, a little emphasis to the rights and freedoms conversation that we’ve been having in our society and just, I think, share the reminder that an Elder in my community reminded me of when I was talking about my rights — to say that with those rights comes a very important and not-to-be-forgotten set of responsibilities to those rights.

The Speech from the Throne is a visionary document delivered by the executive, delivered by our cabinet. It should be what government is going to do, not simply a list of what government has already accomplished. Outlined on the government of Canada website, it writes, when you look up the Speech from the Throne: “The speech introduces the government’s direction and goals, and outlines how it will work to achieve them.” It should not be, as I think Vaughn Palmer described it, reheated items.

Why is this distinction important? Well, it’s important because in a representative democracy, people elect us to debate and create laws on their behalf so that all British Columbians don’t have to fit into this chamber. We are elected to represent roughly 50,000 constituents.

If the people and their representatives don’t know what the direction and the goals of government are, how are the people that are elected here to represent British Columbians going to be able to properly evaluate the success of government if government doesn’t clearly articulate the goals and direction that they intend to take and there is nothing there for us to hold government accountable to? So it’s important that in these speeches from the throne, government is very clear on what the goals and directions that they intend to take are so that, then, those of us in opposition are able to evaluate the success.

I guess we could just take government’s word for it, that they’re doing everything they said they’re going to do and more. I guess we could just take their word for it when we hear phrases like “making life more affordable.” If there’s nothing to be able to evaluate the success or failure of government on, if there aren’t specific goals and directions outlined in a speech like the Speech from the Throne, then any member of government, any member of the executive can stand up and say: “Well, we’ve made life more affordable.” They could repeat that phrase ad nauseam and almost leave the impression that that’s, in fact, what’s happened.

It is important. I think that when you take a look at that specific phrase, for example…. I think if you were to evaluate the government’s job on a variety of fronts, you’re going to get a variety of different bits of information, feedback in some areas: “Yes, life has become more affordable.” And those are the ones that we often hear repeated back to us in question period. In some cases, life has not become more affordable, and those usually form the basis of the questions in question period.

[5:35 p.m.]

But I think that I draw attention to this because I think what’s important is that we use these opportunities in this democratic institution for what their purposes are, because they’re deliberate. They’re not accidental. They didn’t just happen overnight. We didn’t just make them up here in British Columbia. They’ve evolved over time because they are useful protocols to ensure that government is doing what they say they’re doing and that the members of the opposition are able to hold the government accountable.

The next stage of this, of course, is going to be the budget. That’s coming next week. As we take a look at the budget — basically, what that next stage of the process here is — in the spring session of every spring session of the B.C. Legislature is where, really, the government puts wheels to the direction and the goals that they’ve outlined in the Speech from the Throne.

That work then happens in the budget estimates, where we, as members of the opposition, have an opportunity to go into detail into the government’s fiscal plan to really be able to understand whether or not the actions that are outlined in the budget are meeting the vision that the government has laid out in the throne speech.

As British Columbians who may be following along in these speeches are able to understand, each piece of work that we do in this place is a function of that process, and each step in that process is a necessary step in that process. I think it’s really important to recognize that when a throne speech comes, then it’s 70-30 — 70 percent what’s happened and 30 percent what might happen. We start to run into a dysfunction in this Legislative Assembly — a dysfunction that is not to the benefit of the people that sent us here.

It is to the benefit of the artificial lines that are drawn, a line that’s drawn down the middle of this Legislative Assembly, two sword lengths separating us, a division that is necessary or had been necessary in the past and is necessary to distinguish between the members of the opposition and the members of the government. However, I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of who it is that sent us here, why they sent us here and why it is that this place functions the way it does.

I don’t want to leave the impression that there was nothing in the throne speech that referred to what the government’s plan for the future is. I only want to highlight and to maybe put some bold typeface on the fact that the vast majority of it is reheating things that have happened in the past. I mean, getting rid of the MSP, for example, happened so long ago, so many sessions ago, that I can hardly remember when that was. Yet somehow, it shows up again and again as something that is going to be a future promise.

Credit to the government. I think the government has outlined in this Speech from the Throne the main social, environmental and economic challenges facing our province. They have correctly identified the very substantial challenges that we face, and I appreciate the opening of this throne speech focusing on Indigenous relations and reconciliation, because it is foundational to the future of this province. These relationships — the Crown-Indigenous, Indigenous-Crown relationships — are going to be foundational for the continued and ongoing prosperity of our province.

Quoting the speech: “Landmark reforms are ensuring First Nations share meaningfully in the prosperity of the land that they have lived on since time immemorial.” The reason why I elevate this is because I think it’s important to just highlight, maybe, an area that caught my attention when I read this, to say that from the experience that I have in speaking with my Elders in the W̱SÁNEĆ community, my family, and in speaking with Indigenous leaders from across the province….

[5:40 p.m.]

To frame this statement this way, I think, is a misunderstanding of the relationship that Indigenous people have with the land and with the flora and fauna that live and exist on the land. There is an interrelatedness, no separation, between the human species and all of the other species that exist on the land base.

To frame it in a way that Indigenous people and First Nations people have lived on the land, I think, is to understate the fundamental relationship that we need, to get to a deeper understanding of knowing and a deeper understanding of embracing in this institution. Indeed, if we could relate to the natural world in the way of the world view of the W̱SÁNEĆ people — which is understood through our language, SENĆOŦEN — I think we’d start to live in this place, and we’d relate to the other living species around us and in fact the inanimate things around us, like the mountains that the W̱SÁNEĆ people hold sacred.

I just wanted to draw attention to the language in this speech and to highlight the fact that to frame it as, “We live on the land, and we have had these connections to the land,” is, again, an understatement of the relationships that I know Indigenous people to have with their territories.

I, as a W̱SÁNEĆ person, feel very much part of the W̱SÁNEĆ territory. When I leave the territory, it is not homesickness that I feel. It’s inexplicable. I can’t tell you the feeling that I have when I go away from the territory, but it is a yearning and a desire to get back to it. I think that this institution has a lot to learn from Indigenous leaders and Indigenous teachings and world views that would improve our relationships with each other and our relationships to all other flora and fauna.

I appreciate that we are faced with multiple health crises in our province right now: physical health, mental health, the safety of workers, access to primary care, a crisis in our primary care delivery, and a growing crisis in our acute care. So I think it is quite appropriate for the provincial government, in the throne speech, to spend a considerable amount of time talking about the interconnected collision of multiple health crises facing British Columbians now.

I think I have some challenges with some of the language about how it has been framed in the throne speech. I think it’s a little too celebratory at this stage. I think we have still so much work to do in this regard. From my perspective, the actions that are outlined with respect to addressing the mental health crisis, the drug toxicity crisis, the opioid crisis in our province, the ongoing and long-term challenges that we’re going to be facing with COVID-19….

We might be moving towards removing restrictions as a response to this stage of COVID-19, but from the people that I’ve witnessed and that I know who have contracted this terrible virus, many are still fighting symptoms that are keeping them from being able to enjoy the quality of life that they had before the pandemic. Despite our desire to move on, to say that we are past it — I think it’s important to recognize that we have a long road ahead with COVID-19.

[5:45 p.m.]

We absolutely have to address the primary care crisis that’s growing in our province. The actions that this government has taken to this point are not urgent enough. The move to an episodic care model in primary care, to see a distinction growing between those who can afford it and those who can’t…. It’s very challenging for me to see this happening. I think it’s important that we continue to press government on this, and you’ll continue to hear from me on this issue.

With respect to education…. If I was to say one thing about education and the education system, it’s that I would like to…. I should say this about all of our health care workers as well. I raise my hands to all the health care workers who have continued to deliver as high-quality health care as is possible in a public health crisis like we’ve faced.

The same thing goes for our teachers and our educators. I raise my hands. I know personally how important it is, and I’ve seen the effects on my children of being away from their friends and away from school. It was devastating for them. So I am thankful that they’ve still had those connections.

This provincial government needs to continue to do more for neurodiverse children. I continue to hear from my constituents that children who have a designation, neurodiversity challenges, are not getting the level of support that they need in our public education system, so I’d just encourage government. I recognize from the throne speech that we’ve never made larger investments in education than we’re making now. I understand all that rhetoric. However, I continue to hear from my constituents that the funding supports for neurodiverse children are not nearly enough.

You know, the focus on child care over the last number of years has been really important for British Columbia families. The government took quite a bit of time in their throne speech to talk about affordability, and this is a key aspect of affordability for many families in British Columbia.

It was an important move to move it to education. It’s something that the B.C. Greens caucus has had in our platforms in the last couple of elections. We’ve been encouraging the government to move child care into education and that it be part of a continuum of lifelong learning. We’re thrilled that this year we’re likely to see and, hopefully, we will see the government follow through on this commitment.

With respect to housing, the challenges in our housing market, I’ve been listening to the debate in the Legislature here over the last couple of weeks on housing and, of course, engaged more in the debate last fall with a number of questions myself. It’s important to just note that the challenges we face in our real estate market will not be solved by new supply, cutting taxes or increasing taxes alone.

We need a comprehensive and coordinated approach to cool the housing market and to deliver a supply of accessible, affordable housing — all the way from supported housing options for people to multifamily options and to single-family. It’s going to require us to have the uncomfortable conversations about zoning and zoning bylaws and land use decisions in our communities. But it’s not a situation where just supply alone is going to solve this problem. It will continue to be a comprehensive set of tools that this government puts together.

As was pointed out by the member who spoke before me — a really remarkable story when it comes to the repair of infrastructure that was damaged by the severe weather events — I’d just encourage government to recognize that the infrastructure that we have today was built for another time.

[5:50 p.m.]

I think the government knows this. It needs to be more resilient. We need to make sure that all new infrastructure is built, scoped to be able to deal with extreme weather events like we’ve never seen before. Once-in-200-, once-in-500-year weather events are happening more and more frequently, and we must build our infrastructure to be resilient to that.

That includes providing new fiscal tools. I am encouraged to see that a committee has been struck between the provincial government and the UBCM. Those of us who’ve been in local government know we’ve been talking about this for a long time. We absolutely need to put new fiscal tools in place for local governments.

With respect to ecosystem health and climate action, I’m thankful to see reference to the climate emergency in the throne speech. However, CleanBC is not enough. It doesn’t go far enough. As has been suggested by others outside this House, we need to design this institution to be able to address climate change. This institution and the way that government is formed at this point is not designed with the climate emergency at the centre of it.

We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction. We need to stop making excuses for it. It is not good enough, and we are going to continue to create the problem that we’re going to try to build our way out of if we continue to leave government the way it is organized now. We need to reorganize government to address climate action. A CleanBC plan is not enough.

I think many British Columbians know, because I’ve spoken about this a lot. I’ve talked a lot about forestry. I’m going to leave it for now because I’m running short on time.

I do want to make a couple of points about building a strong economy. I think the way government has framed this is that people are at the centre of the decisions, people are at the centre of the economy. In fact, there is no economy without people. I think the Premier has made those comments.

It’s important to acknowledge that — that a strong economy is the result of investments in people, investments in health care, investments in education, investments in making sure that people have access to a house, a home, a place that they can build a life around. All of those investments, all of those programs together create the conditions for a powerful economy to be established.

We can continue to extract and create what ends up being a false economy, because you can only extract for so long. You can only extract value from the environment for so long before it becomes so degraded that it’s not there to produce for you anymore. That’s the economy that this province was built on. Now we do absolutely need to transition our economy so it’s built around the people, not built around the trees and all of the natural resources that we can harvest.

I’m going to end with this. What’s missing? What’s missing from the throne speech? Well, there’s a lot that’s missing, but there are two key points that I’m sad did not show up anywhere in the throne speech. One is the work of the Police Act reform committee. We have spent an incredible amount of time working very collaboratively. Nowhere in the throne speech does it say that this government is going to take the report that is going to be tabled by that committee later this year seriously, that they’re going to enact it and they’re going to take the recommendations forward with the full force of the ministry.

I would like to see a commitment from this government that they’re not going to let that document sit on the shelf and collect dust. We’ve done — if I may say so, for the whole committee — incredible work. Very collaborative. The most encouraging work that I’ve done in this Legislature has happened within the walls of that committee. The provincial government needs to indicate to all British Columbians that the work that we’ve done was not in vain.

Finally, I’ll just say this. I’m sad to not see updates to the Emergency Act in this. We know that public safety also includes preparedness and our response to severe weather events and to storms. We’ve seen that fail over the past year, so we need to make sure that those updates are also in place.

With that, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne. I’ll take my seat.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

[5:55 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Hey, wrapping up the evening, here. I’m the closer. Right on.

It’s my honour to rise and speak to debate on the throne speech. I’ll get into the meat and potatoes here pretty quick, but as is customary in response to the throne speech, I wish to recognize some of those that passed away in the riding of the Kootenays since the last throne speech. Unfortunately, there are too many to mention in the time that I’m allotted, and I’m always worried that I’m going to forget one or two. So I just wanted to mention a couple that were personal for me.

That was my uncle Richard, who passed away, unfortunately — my dad’s brother. He was a great uncle. He was a maverick. He was a bit of a rebel, but that’s what made him so great and so well liked with the little nephews that he had that saw this guy run around. I remember he used to park his truck up on my dad’s lawn all the time as a joke kind of thing, and my dad would get kind of upset about that. But he was a great guy.

The second one was, for any pet owners out there, our companion, our family pet, Murphy, a 14½-year-old lab. A great companion, like I said — the only companion and pet that our kids ever knew. We had to put him down a couple of weeks ago. That was a sad event, for sure.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my great constituency staff in Cranbrook, Jonah Gowans and Kris Dickeson, and my legislative staff here, David Somerville, Nick Heinemann and Aaron Gill, as well as front office help Louise Denis — great folks that we’re all apprised to here in the Legislature. I think I speak for everyone when I say we all respect our great staff.

Additionally, I’d be terribly remiss…. It’s a bit of a day old, here, but I thought maybe I’d be doing the speech yesterday. I’m just wishing my wife a happy Valentine’s Day. She’s definitely the rock in our family. She looks after all the house duties for the kids and that kind of stuff while I’m away. I remember when I first got elected, she said: “Don’t expect me to go and do a bunch of these dinners, but I’ll make sure the house is in order.” I really respect and love my wife, Carrie, so just a little shout-out to them.

Now getting to the throne speech. Just as a precursor, here, I wanted to make a couple of comments to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission on some of his assertations on the MSP premiums being the biggest tax cut in British Columbian history. I really have always kind of shaken my head at that comment, just more because a tax cut is, by definition, a reduction in the tax charged by a government. The immediate effects of a tax cut are a decrease in the income of the government and an increase in the income of those whose taxes have been lowered.

Well, we know that didn’t happen, because simultaneously, while the MSP was being shuffled off, another tax was being shuffled in, and that was the EHT. As a matter of fact, the government benefitted greatly in the first year because, I think, if you all remember, there was a bit of a double-dip there in the first year, where half the MSPs were being taken, plus the EHT was being brought in. So it definitely wasn’t a decrease in revenue to government, and the ill effects from the HST were definitely a net loss to income for those people as taxpayers. So I would like to get the record straight on that one.

I did a little bit of something different with the throne speech here, because we’ve heard a lot of people on this side of the House saying that it’s regurgitated from years gone by and that there is no real forward vision. Of course, on the government side, we’re hearing: “This is a look to the future.” I even heard the member from Prince George–Mackenzie referring to the throne speech as having the excitement and substance of a dietary cracker.

Which one is it? Is it forward-thinking, or is it just a regurgitation? I took the opportunity to take out the old speech from 2017 to compare it with the throne speech here in 2022 to see which is right, because they both can’t be right.

The throne speech back in 2017 spoke of great emergencies. Now, a lot of people probably remember that back in 2017, we had about 1,200 forest fires that burned about 1.1 million hectares of land, about a third the size of Vancouver Island. So there were emergencies back then too. It spoke of thousands forced from their homes and livelihoods being lost. It spoke of people helping people. “Together, we will get through this. Together, we will rebuild.”

[6:00 p.m.]

Flash forward five years, and people are still helping people, thankfully. We’ve seen it all over, but government is nowhere to be found. We’ll go into that right now with some of the emergency response that we’ve seen from this government in the last year.

We all know full well, unfortunately and sadly enough, and traumatically, I might add, that close to 600 people lost their lives in a forecasted — I’ll underline that, forecasted — heat dome. Most of these people were frail seniors. They were very vulnerable. As a matter of fact, on June 29, more than ten people died every hour in the cities like Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby. But it wasn’t just the Lower Mainland. It was places like Prince George — 12 people were lost there — and others across the province. That was one example.

An atmospheric river event and subsequent floods in 2021 that hit and devastated B.C. were also forecasted and well known in advance, but we didn’t hear the warning sirens from B.C. when the floodwaters were on their way down the Nooksack. It was the warning sirens from Washington state that we all heard.

I did a little bit of research, as well, on this, and my colleague from Abbotsford South, on November 15, actually issued warnings about potential flooding and for the constituents of his and others to design an evacuation plan. This is well in advance of anything we saw from government.

Now, with all due respect to the member for Abbotsford South — only 700 views on that Twitter or whatever he used. I think it was Twitter. Far as much of what a government website would view. But there were some significant losses, and we’ve heard them time and time again. The farmers lost valuable and precious livestock that could have been saved with more advanced warnings, such as the one that the member for Abbotsford South gave — 628,000 chickens, 12,000 pigs, 428 dairy cows, not to mention some lives and not to mention some livelihoods of farmers, ranchers.

As I mentioned earlier, this isn’t something new the government has seen. We saw it in 2017 from the throne speech. There was devastation back then. This is something that was forecasted. Gone from this year’s speech in regards to emergencies is people helping people. I didn’t see that when it came to the emergency I just highlighted. What was said, though, was: “When wildfires and flooding devastated communities, your government was guided by the same values — providing help to people on the ground who needed it the most.”

Well, let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about the people that needed it the most. I’ll point to the situation in Merritt and Lytton this year. My question is: how is it possible in 2022, after the year we just all experienced in 2021, to have a throne speech that doesn’t even mention the town of Merritt? How is it possible that we can have a throne speech that doesn’t even touch on Lytton, which is no longer even there?

We haven’t seen any progress whatsoever to replace any of the homes lost in this year’s tragic fire. These poor British Columbians have been sitting idly by for — I don’t know — close to two months. I don’t know what the number count is, but it’s 240 days or something like that. How is it possible that there is no mention for the Sumas Prairie and all the flooding and impacts that happened to farmers there?

I think it’s just a mention, maybe, somewhere in the throne speech when they talk about emergency response. Something like that that’s so impactful would be at least a little bit of a hug to those people that are going through the times that they’re going through. Some of these people have been couch-surfing and living in motels for eight months, and the throne speech doesn’t mention them once. In my opinion, it’s unacceptable.

This government should be more than used to emergencies by now. They say they’re working on it. They’ve got to get it right. Help is on the way. We hear this time and time again from this government. But quite frankly, the honeymoon is over.

[6:05 p.m.]

I still hear calls from the other side saying: “The last 16 years….” Well, I’m not sure if the government realizes it, but the last five are theirs. It’s amazing how they will keep going back to the hopper if they don’t have an answer for something.

Statistics show that B.C. has never used the Alert Ready technology since it became available to Canadian jurisdictions in 2018. In fact, B.C. is the only province in Canada not using the Alert Ready technology.

Now, I live close to Alberta. I go over there every once in a while. My son plays hockey. We go to a hockey tournament every once in a while, and sometimes I’m awakened by my phone buzzing off. Wondering what’s going on, I look at it, and it’s an AMBER alert of some sort. Maybe a child has been abducted. Maybe there’s a industrial fire or some danger going on.

We don’t have that. We could. We certainly have been warned on this many times since 2017. We know that catastrophes and devastation are going to happen, but for some reason, not sure why, this government fails big-time on this. The member from Saanich North and the Islands just kind of wrapped up his whole speech saying just that.

Ontario has sent alerts more than 200 times in the last two years alone for emergencies like tornado warnings and AMBER alerts. One must wonder the impact and the human lives, and livestock, that could have been saved if B.C. had simply done what all the other provinces have done with a proper Alert Ready system in place. It does make you wonder.

Instead, we have to rely on things like American broadcasts and social media, like I mentioned, from the member for Abbotsford South. It’s just unacceptable. It’s very clear to me, and I think a lot of members on this side of the House, that the NDP are great at talking the talk, but essentially they’re in the fetal position when it comes to walking the walk.

Let’s look at another emergency. The opioid crisis. It’s huge. This is the largest crisis of human life that we have ever seen in this province by far. More than six people a day are dying — six a day. Those are mothers, fathers, brothers, people we know. Probably every single person in this House, I’m almost guaranteed, has been affected by some way, have known somebody. I’ve lost three friends, myself, in the last year and a half. It’s not great opening up the obituary pages and seeing somebody that you know, and then finding out later it was an overdose or something related to addiction.

The throne speech did mention the opioid crisis back in 2017. The government, back in 2017, was horrified by 978 people that died of overdoses in 2016. The government’s message was clear when it spoke about this emergency, saying: “It demands an immediate and direct response, which our government is determined to provide.” That was back in 2017.

It’s hard to even say, but 2,224 lost their lives last year. It’s the deadliest year by far of any year — as a matter of fact, a horrifying 26 percent greater than the previous record. I even hesitate to use the word “record” when describing a death toll, as this description is probably best used for athletic achievements or something like that — something that we don’t want to be breaking, that’s for sure.

These are people’s lives, yet government will release information, such as…. I hear stuff like 6.1 people die every day to the opioid pandemic. There is no 0.1. It’s either six or seven. These aren’t statistics. These aren’t decimal points. It really dehumanizes everything that we’re seeing right now.

I just want to touch on something that is my own personal feeling. There is no such thing, in my opinion, as a safe drug supply. I want to make that clear for myself. Heroin, cocaine, OxyContin, any kind of prescription drug in their purest form are not safe and are toxic in themselves when addiction sets in. Anything used like that is not safe. Anything like that is toxic.

[6:10 p.m.]

Government would have you believe that all these people are losing their lives to a toxic supply, when the real answer is they’re actually losing their lives to addiction. However, government is more than happy to push blame onto something that’s seemingly out of their control.

My brother — it’s hard to say, because I know my mom and dad are watching right now — died from what government would say was a safe drug supply. Unlike those that perished to an overdose, my brother’s demise was inevitable due to the damage drugs did to his body. There was nothing safe about the drugs he did that led to his addiction. Even after we worked with him for a year, and he was drug-free, the drugs that he used did irreparable damage to his heart. He succumbed to a pulmonary edema. The signs were there, but the medical staff didn’t diagnose it properly.

I really wish that this government and any other, subsequent governments would stay off the safe drug supply talk. I understand where it’s coming from. I understand that the tainted supply that we get can lead to overdoses more rapidly than the long, painful, drawn-out addiction process that my brother went through. But when you say government is trying to create or improve on a clean drug supply, or a safe drug supply, in my opinion, that’s an oxymoron.

I don’t think that’s a great message that we send to our kids. I don’t think it’s something I want to be telling my daughter, who is 16, or my son, who is 13. “We’re working on a safe drug supply, son.” Children don’t understand that kind of terminology.

Clearly, whatever this government is trying to accomplish is simply not working. So 974 people, fine people, back in 2016 — now 2,224. We’re seeing the impacts on the street. It’s devastating. So whatever they’re doing is simply not working, and the road to recovery doesn’t end with just harm reduction. I want to make that clear as well. It’s one of the four pillars of recovery, but at some point, recovery comes with prevention, treatment, enforcement — the other three pillars. We simply are not seeing that with this government.

Warehousing vulnerable people with addictions and trying to tie this into affordable housing somehow just doesn’t work. I see it in my own community. In my community right now, the closest place a person can go for rehabilitation is in Castlegar. If you don’t know where Castlegar is in proximity to Cranbrook, it’s about two and a half hours away, over a mountain pass that’s closed much of the winter season. It’s not really an immediate place.

But what government did do was they’ve rented out a local motel in Cranbrook and they housed some vulnerable people, which is great. But there are no resources to help them, so you’re essentially warehousing people with no supports. This elevates the situation. Then, of course, evildoers infiltrate that. They victimize these vulnerable people even more for profit, for illegal profit, whether it’s the sex trade or the drug trade or whatever. It’s just a downward spiral, for sure.

Another example from my local community was the local faith-based organization that put together a project — I was actually on the committee with B.C. Housing — that would include 36 beds with complete 24-7 prevention, treatment and enforcement. I won’t mention the name of the organization, but they’ve been around for over 100 years, and they’ve done some great work across the country.

There was a plan. We had the land. We had the money. We had the building ready to go. Then, in 2017, we had a change in government. We reached out. We were hoping, crossing our fingers, that this project would still go forward. They said: “Yeah, we’re all on board.”

[6:15 p.m.]

So there was a bit of high-fiving going on. Everybody was happy. We were going to get the treatment that a lot of people in Cranbrook needed, but there was a caveat to that. That was that they needed a safe injection site on premise. But this abstinence-based, faith-based organization couldn’t accept that. It was against their policies. So the whole thing was cancelled — 36 beds. It would have made an unbelievable difference. Sometimes the politics gets in the way. We can’t have that anymore.

The throne speech. I’m getting into some other parts of the throne speech here. I don’t have that much time; I wonder which one I should tackle here first. Let’s go with wildlife and habitat — once again, no mention, zero. Zero mention of wildlife and habitat. Well, a little bit on forestation, but nothing on wildlife, and nothing on wildlife management.

Our ungulate populations — our deer, moose, elk — record lows. In my riding of Kootenay East, we’re seeing just a complete decrease of our ungulate population. It’s critical. It’s what makes B.C. wild; it’s what makes B.C. so beautiful. I don’t think there’s anybody in this House that would argue that. But we need some serious dollars, and we need some serious science, and then we need some serious data to back this up.

The member, actually, for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain gave a great two-minute speech the other day on restoring and securing community watersheds. I thought it was great. So there’s definitely some buy-in. I’ve heard it from the members for Saanich North and the Islands and, as well, for Prince George–Mackenzie. There are enough of us in this room that buy into this.

I’m totally encouraged about the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition that was just recently struck here in the last year. I see the Minister of Environment sitting by. He understands the B.C. Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition that has been struck, a great organization. It’s 25 actual organizations that, I could say quite honestly, a couple of years ago probably wouldn’t even sit in the same room as one another. But nothing like a crisis brings people together, and that’s what we’re seeing with this coalition. So 273,000 members are part of this coalition, 900 businesses.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I’ve been on the record for this for the past four or five years, trying to put wildlife first. If members of this House and organizations that are historically on polar opposites want to see wildlife first, then why can’t members of this House get on board with that same message? Why would government not even mention this in the throne speech? I’ve advocated for four fundamental pieces, and I believe that the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition has the same kind of message.

We need a funding model — a funding model that is at arm’s length from government, that can bring in all sorts of revenue. Whether it’s corporate donations, philanthropy or, maybe, forms of taxation, I don’t know, but it needs to be established. Government needs to buy in on that. We need money to do this. If we look at some jurisdictions like Oregon, they have $350 million a year that goes into their fish and wildlife management plans.

What have we got? Maybe $30 million, $27 million, something like that? In a jurisdiction that has roughly the same population, we’ve got four or five times the land mass that Oregon has got, and we’ve got $27 million. It’s just pathetic.

We need science-based decision-making, nothing emotionally based. It’s got to be science-based, and it’s got to be backed up with data. It needs to have a regionalized approach. Trappers, hunters, local biologists, local First Nations, ranchers, guide-outfitters — all these people with their boots on the ground understand the back country better than anyone else. We’ve got an invaluable resource in our stakeholders, in our land users. They need to be at the decision-making table.

The last one is legislation that puts wildlife first, something that overrides the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Mines Act. These are important things.

I’ve only got five minutes left. I’ll touch briefly on housing affordability. We’ve heard it in this House a lot, and we heard it from the speech in 2017, that 114,000 affordable homes were promised by this government.

[6:20 p.m.]

Right now what’s the count? It’s 5,269. That was even from the minister’s estimates, I believe, last year. It’s not a made-up figure. It’s 5,269 in-house people living there. That’s a far cry from 114,000. As a matter of fact, it’s about an average of 1,000 a year. By that math, it’s going to be another 109 years before we get to the goal, if we continue on this course. That would make me and the Premier about 170 years old.

I’m not going to make it. Well, maybe. I’ve heard 170 is the new 120, so I might be okay. I don’t know. But it’s outrageous.

I don’t know if I can touch into mining, but I’ll try to wrap up with mining. The throne speech says: “In a tumultuous world, B.C.’s combination of high environmental standards, skilled labor and partnerships with First Nations is providing certainty and attracting strong investment from around the world.” I can agree, certainly, with B.C. having the strongest environmental, labour safety and human rights standards in the world. We’ve done a great job, I think, in that. But attracting strong investment from around the world — I definitely challenge.

I was at one local industry meeting not too long ago, and one of the industry people spoke up — a very prominent one, I might add — and said there is a loss of about $3 billion already, or about to take place, of investment leaving this province to go to other jurisdictions — maybe Alberta, Saskatchewan; internationally, such as Chile, Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia. This is carbon leakage. If we don’t give breathing room to ourselves for our great natural resource industries, we’ll choke ourselves out, and we’re seeing that happen right now in real time.

We are going to drive demand from a place that does things environmentally, labour laws, human rights standards…. I mean, you look at mines — how they’re operating in Africa and some other countries in the world, and their mining practices. They’ll put a 14-year-old child down a mine shaft, without ventilation, to mine.

We do it so much better here. That’s an understatement. We do it the best in the world. Why would we not want to do it responsibly, here in British Columbia? It makes no sense to chase this demand somewhere else.

When we talk about minerals…. I mean, if you don’t farm it, you mine it. Critical minerals. The federal government put out a critical mineral list, 31 critical minerals, that will not only help drive low-carbon innovation, whether it’s solar or wind or geothermal, but it’ll also assist in our national security, such as surveillance, satellite imagery, those kinds of things, things that make our country safe. It also helps with our medical field — diagnostic equipment, MRIs, PET scans, surgical equipment, things like that.

We need to secure our minerals in British Columbia. We cannot afford to give that up. I think that was a good strategy by the Canadian government to put that forward, but B.C. has to be on board with that. If we want to go to a low-carbon innovation, if we want to go to a low-carbon future, we need mining and we need minerals to do that.

I mean, we hear of replacing all our internal combustion engines with electric vehicles. It takes five times the amount of copper in an EV than it does in an internal combustion engine. We need nickel. We need cadmium. We need tellurite. We need all these great things. Silver. We won’t get it if we’re chasing business away. We’re going to lose that competitive advantage.

I’m not sure what I want to wrap up here with. I think it’s….

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

T. Shypitka: Noting the hour, I’ll take my place and adjourn the debate.

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.