Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 188
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Fraud Risk
Management: Site C Dam and Hydroelectric Energy | |
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Beyond
Compliance: Ensuring Quality in Care Planning, | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Introductions by Members
R. Leonard: I have two introductions. One is a number of birthdays at the end of April. When we’re young we enjoy celebrating those birthdays, and then, as we get older, we kind of try to ignore them. But they’re still a wonderful day to remember people.
A long-time friend of mine, Ian Mass, has a birthday. I can’t remember if it’s today or some time around now — anyway, this week. My former sister-in-law, who gave me a beautiful niece, and I now have a grand-nephew, Inder Leonard, and someone in this House who has become a very dear friend, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training. I hope that the House will join me in celebrating them with giving them a good round of applause.
Also, I have today, visiting from Courtenay-Comox…. It’s not often this happens. Right next door to my constituency office is Square 1 Travel. They do B.C. tours. Today Teresa MacDonald is here with 30 members of the community to visit this Legislature. Would the House please welcome them.
R. Glumac: I would like to welcome to the House Greg Moore and Tony Kai, here on behalf of the Crossroads Hospice in my community. Greg won a contest to have a day with some MLAs, so he’s going to spend some time with myself and the member from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and we’re going to tour him around. So would the House please make them feel welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 22 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
Hon. J. Whiteside presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 2022.
Hon. J. Whiteside: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 22, School Amendment Act, 2022, which will make a set of amendments to the School Act to assist the province to meet its constitutional obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide capital resources to the Conseil scolaire francophone in support of minority language educational programs. These amendments will help to address a 2020 Supreme Court of Canada decision that defines the province’s obligations to provide school facilities and land to support the delivery of francophone educational programs to children of minority language education rights holders.
The CSF is one of the 60 public boards of education established under the School Act, but has a unique and specific mandate to provide public education in French. The CSF is the sole public francophone education authority in B.C. and provides francophone educational programs, primarily to students whose parents have constitutional rights under section 23 of the Charter to have their children receive education in the French language.
Since the creation of the CSF in the mid-1990s, the province has used several mechanisms to acquire land and school facilities for the CSF. However, these mechanisms are insufficient to meet the full scope of the province’s constitutional obligations as now defined by the 2020 Supreme Court of Canada decision.
The proposed legislation will play an important role in supporting the implementation of the province’s CSF capital strategy. Under this strategy, the province will implement a coordinated suite of new policies to address the CSF’s capital needs, with a focus on collaborative and negotiations-based approaches to obtaining land.
To support this work, the proposed legislation includes a requirement for boards of education, including the CSF, to report information to the Minister of Education and Child Care about all lands they own or lease. This requirement will allow the ministry to create an inventory of all lands used for K-to-12 purposes to support efforts to meet the CSF’s capital needs over the long term.
The province is committed to continuing to work collaboratively with the CSF and all boards of education to find land solutions that meet the CSF’s capital needs. This includes purchasing private land and investigating opportunities to better leverage Crown land in areas where school district land is fully utilized. The legislation will also provide the province the authority to first designate land held by another board and then to transfer that land to the CSF if collaborative and negotiations-based efforts fail.
It is important to note that this new power will only be used as a last resort, as part of a continuum of approaches, and only if and when all other attempts to fulfil the province’s obligations to section 23 rights holders are unsuccessful.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. Whiteside: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 22, School Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
DAVID DOUGLAS BOTANICAL GARDEN
M. Morris: In 1991, a group of community gardeners formed the David Douglas Botanical Garden Society and established their garden on the grounds of the University of Northern British Columbia in the city of Prince George.
It is the most northerly botanical garden in Canada. For the past 30 years, this beautiful and picturesque facility has been visited by thousands of people every year. Its grounds have attracted tourists, weddings and other events, and I have no doubt that the photographs of this magnificent garden are shared internationally.
Bold plans are now in the works to expand the gardens by an additional ten-plus acres on the UNBC campus. The goal? To become a working model for cold-climate landscapes and to promote sustainable horticultural practices and ecological values of native and adaptable plants.
In their plans is a food-bank garden, focused on developing new varieties of fruits, vegetables and herbs, fruit trees and berry crops compatible with our northern climates. The grounds will be complemented with a multipurpose visitor centre, a multiple-themed garden, such as a libertarian garden, complete with memorial arts and sculptures, a reading garden, rose garden, children’s garden and many others.
Taking advantage of the natural forest in the garden area, a First Nations garden will celebrate art, history and culture of the various First Nations bands in northern B.C. Complementing this will be a medicinal healing and native plant display garden, blending into the natural forest and connecting the marshlands and water gardens.
There’s no doubt that the garden features will continue to attract local wildlife populations, including natural arborists like moose and deer. From my own experience as a home gardener, these natural arborists will certainly challenge the maintenance and grooming plans of a master gardener.
The David Douglas Botanical Garden will showcase the value of biodiversity in our natural environments.
UNCONSCIOUS BIAS AND CRITICAL
THINKING AND WORK OF
POLICE ACT REFORM COMMITTEE
G. Begg: Unconscious biases are associations or attitudes that reflexively alter our perceptions, thereby unintentionally affecting our behaviours, interactions and decision-making. Ridding ourselves of our unconscious biases may seem to be somewhat antithetical to the work that we do here in this House every day.
Think about that for a second. Are we all constrained by the dogma or doctrine of our political persuasions, such that our behaviours, our interactions and — most worrisome of all — our decisions are biased?
We — all of us, each of us, every one of us — need to be actively confronting and discussing this subject at every level so that we bridge the gaps and learn where to dedicate resources for improvement, even if it means confronting awkward topics and having uncomfortable conversations. This issue does not improve if we choose to ignore it or, what’s worse, deny it.
Some of the best work done in this House is done in committees, where to at least some degree, we’re forced to sharpen our critical-thinking skills, to shed our political labels, and to cooperate and collaborate on outcomes. Critical thinking is to be rational, reasonable, empathetic and, on occasion, upon evidence, to change our minds.
For the past two years, I’ve been privileged to be part of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, a group which I honour today as being an example that we all can aspire to. Our report will be tabled later this week. Today I publicly acknowledge the hard work of the committee, comprising an amazing group of legislators who are truly critical thinkers and who truly reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way.
Please join me in thanking the Chair, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan; the Deputy Chair, the member for Peace River North; and the members for Port Moody–Coquitlam, Surrey–White Rock, West Vancouver–Capilano, Victoria–Beacon Hill, Saanich North and the Islands, Vernon-Monashee and Surrey–Green Timbers.
ALTAGAS AND
LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
INDUSTRY
E. Ross: I rise today to speak about AltaGas, a company that is delivering cleaner, reliable, safe and affordable energy to global customers. They’re an excellent example of the innovation that exists in our province and the potential of a largely untapped sector.
Propane and butane, better known as LPG, are two of the most versatile, cost-effective and environmentally friendly fuel sources in the world. LPG is an important low-carbon conversion fuel for countries that rely heavily on wood, coal, charcoal, animal waste and kerosene as their primary domestic energy sources.
Asia’s increasing climate ambition and increasing demand for energy will drive long-term export opportunities for Canadian LPGs. AltaGas exclusively ships from their Ridley Island propane export terminal located in Prince Rupert and Ferndale Terminal in Washington state. Using very large gas carriers, AltaGas provides the most efficient, safest and lowest-carbon transportation vessels, connecting North American producers to premium LPG prices in Asia and providing energy security.
The west coast exports have around 60 percent, base case, time savings over the U.S. Gulf Coast and approximately 45 percent, base case, time savings over the Arabian Gulf. This is a huge advantage when there is congestion at key maritime checkpoints. The exports from Prince Rupert and Ferndale comprise approximately 14 percent of Japan’s total imports of propane and approximately 15 percent of South Korea’s total LPG imports.
This is a massive opportunity for B.C. to become a leading supplier of LPG. Propane and butane are a safe, Canadian-produced clean energy resource with a great potential to provide significant job opportunities for many people in British Columbia.
I commend AltaGas for their innovation, which strengthens our economy every day. I will take them up on their offer to tour their facility.
EAST VAN KIDS STEAM
M. Elmore: I’m pleased to highlight today a wonderful group that came together to help kids in East Vancouver develop to their fullest potential. East Van Kids STEAM started as a grassroots community pilot project, in collaboration with the Vancouver Public Library, Kensington branch. It was founded by local community members Khristine Carino and Jean Parlina, and they ran programs from summer 2018 to spring 2020.
STEAM — science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics — refers to an education initiative that helps kids develop critical skills they can use in life and that empowers them to use their unique talents to critically tackle a challenge or a project at hand. One of the organizers, Christine Corinho, says she started East Van Kids to democratize access to learning opportunities in STEM. She was aware that many children from financially challenged and racialized groups are unable to avail of science and tech programs in the city, so she created this free program.
At East Van Kids, almost 400 children from East Vancouver participated in science and coding and robotics workshops, facilitated by guests from Microsoft, Canada Learning Code, Kids Code Jeunesse, SFU, Open Science Network and the Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology.
After a hiatus during the pandemic, East Van Kids is relaunching in 2022 as an incorporated social enterprise offering outdoor nature exploration summer camps. Committed to social inclusion and racial equity, East Van Kids will be offering bursaries to children from financially challenged and/or culturally marginalized families in future programming.
Please join me in recognizing the great work and positive impact East Van Kids is having on these children, their families and our communities.
JERRY DOUCETTE
I. Paton: Well, a few of us who grew up in the ’60s and ’70s may just remember Mr. Jerry Doucette and his iconic hit “Momma Let Him Play,” which still rocks the airwaves even today. A constituent and a Ladner resident, Jerry passed away from cancer just last week at our beloved Delta hospice at age 70.
A singer, songwriter and outstanding guitarist, Jerry was best known for his song “Momma Let Him Play,” which was certified platinum in Canada in ’77 and hit the Billboard Hot 100. His band, Doucette, also won the 1979 Juno for Most Promising Group of the Year.
The title of Doucette’s hit song was inspired by something his dad said when he was growing up. His father, Louis, worked shifts. When he came home to find Jerry practising the guitar, his mother would tell their son to be quiet. “Momma, let him play,” Doucette recalled his father saying: “Later, I thought ‘what a great title.’”
Doucette released five albums as a solo artist between ’77 and ’99. He continued playing small venues and clubs in western Canada until 2018, when heart problems put his performing career on hold.
He was a frequent regular at several Delta venues and also participated in many local fundraisers. Some of those fundraisers included the annual Christmas toy drive for Deltassist, fundraising for the Reach Child and Youth Development Society and Variety, The Children’s Charity. The community came together in 2018 in Tsawwassen to hold a fundraiser to help Doucette with his medical expenses following a car accident and the discovery of his heart condition.
On a personal note, showcasing Jerry’s generosity, a young friend of mine, Nick Loladachuck, once contacted Mr. Doucette to let him know he was presenting to his Ladner grade 7 class an assignment on the story behind Jerry’s life and his hit song. Mr. Doucette responded by not only encouraging Nick, but he actually showed up at his grade 7 class with guitar in hand to speak to his fellow students.
Doucette was a brilliant guitarist who was admired by fans and loved by fellow musicians, and in the words of his son Gerry Jr., it was very special to see the joy he brought to so many people.
“His music will live on forever, and hopefully, he will inspire others to pick up the guitar and follow their dreams.”
HUNAN FELLOW ASSOCIATION
OF
VANCOUVER
H. Yao: Due to the pandemic, Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver was not able to host their annual fundraiser for the past two years. Thankfully, on April 22, last Friday, under the leadership of president Coco Luo and vice-president Linda Li, Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver hosted the Richmond Hospital Foundation fundraiser in Richmond’s Sun Sui Wah Restaurant.
Many community dignitaries attended the event, and some even helped with the fundraising effort. For example, Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie, president Coco Luo and vice-president Linda Li together sang the Chinese classic song “The Moon Represents My Heart,” which alone raised $6,500 for the Richmond Hospital Foundation.
The evening bidding was heated as well. I witnessed the participants generously compete against one another to purchase paintings, calligraphy, stuffed animals, karaoke performance and other items. Many bids went way beyond the dollars identified. Encouraged by the master of ceremonies, the participants’ enthusiastic cheers to support the Richmond Hospital Foundation echoed continuously in the restaurant.
When the raffle draw time came, all the winners donated their prizes back to the event in the hope to raise more money for the Richmond Hospital Foundation. One of the winners not just donated his prize back; he even challenged his table mates to add an additional donation to complement the raffle prize that he was returning.
I want to thank the Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver’s dedication to Richmond and British Columbia. The event was mostly attended by Chinese Canadians who share a similar heritage to China’s Hunan province. Chinese Canadians who attended the event demonstrated their enthusiasm, generosity and commitment to the Richmond Hospital Foundation and British Columbia’s health care system.
I want to take this opportunity to personally thank Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver president Coco Luo, vice-president Linda Li and the board of directors, community leaders and dignitaries and everyone else who attended the event to make Richmond awesome.
S. Furstenau: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
S. Furstenau: In the gallery today is Parker Johnson. Parker is the director of community engagement at the Existence Project and founder of This Is Table Talk. Through Table Talk, he has created many community discussions on the experiences of racism and researching the positive impacts of storytelling. We’re delighted to have Mr. Johnson join us today. Would the House please make him feel most welcome.
Speaker’s Statement
CONDUCT OF MEMBERS
DURING QUESTION
PERIOD
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, yesterday towards the end of oral question period, the level of decorum in this House declined to a level that has not been seen in the current parliament. This conduct caused the Chair great concern. The preservation of order and decorum is one of the most important tasks that any presiding officer must undertake. It is, as members will appreciate, a task that can be challenging at times, particularly, when debates and exchanges are tense.
This House adopts rules and establishes practices that guide the proceedings of this institution and protect itself from excesses. While the House is the master of its proceedings and the Speaker is its servant, through the standing orders, this House has entrusted the Chair with powers to enforce the rules of debate and maintain order and decorum so that this House can conduct its business in an orderly fashion.
The Chair expects to rely on members’ confidence to allow the Chair to discharge the duties that have been entrusted to it. This includes members acting on the direction provided by the Chair and not challenging the Chair when asked to undertake a course of action. This ensures that the traditions that have underpinned our system of governance under parliamentary democracy continue to be respected, allowing the House and its members to fulfil their constitutional functions.
The Chair trusts that all members will ensure that their conduct reflects respect for this House, respect for other members, including those across the aisle, and respect for the Chair. British Columbians’ trust in this Legislative Assembly is dependent on our behaviour and our respect for one another and for the dignity of this institution. Please, always be mindful of that.
You all know that I love you all. I have a great deal of respect for each and every one of you. So please, don’t force me to send you to your rooms. Thank you.
T. Shypitka: Can I seek leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
T. Shypitka: I’ll make it quick. In the precinct, we have Kendra Johnston, the president and CEO for the Association for Mineral Exploration or, as we refer to it, AME. Would the House please make her feel welcome.
Oral Questions
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
S. Bond: For months, the opposition has raised concerns about prolific offenders who commit serious crimes yet are not charged or who are immediately released and allowed to reoffend while waiting for the province to approve charges. While the Attorney General has dismissed our concerns, the results are felt in every community across British Columbia. There are increased random attacks, rampant theft and violent assaults.
The Attorney received a letter on April 5 from 13 urban mayors in the province. It contains very specific and detailed offence data, detailing the Attorney’s catch-and-release policies. The letter reads in part: “Serious repeat offenders posing ongoing risk to public safety are walking freely in our communities while awaiting charge approvals.”
When will the Attorney General end the revolving door and prioritize safety in our communities?
Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, I’m familiar with the letter the member refers to. She leaves out some key details.
I met with the urban mayors council on December 17. They raised issues similar to those raised by the opposition some time after. I said to them: “Thank you for bringing this information to our attention. Can you provide additional details about what’s happening in your communities?” So they wrote back to me: “We value the opportunity to connect for ongoing dialogue and look forward to the next opportunity.”
We met again on April 8. It says: “At the Attorney General’s request, we are providing criminal offence data from our cities.” So I asked the mayors. We have been engaging in dialogue since December on this issue. I’m working with them on a response.
I want to provide a little bit of context for the member’s question. I think anytime that someone is a victim of crime, whether it’s property crime or violent crime, it’s a really serious and profound impact on them and their feelings of safety. But it’s also important as legislators that we look at provincial trends. So 2020 was the lowest level of property offences provincially based on population since at least 2011 and the lowest overall number of offences since 2013.
I don’t dispute that the pandemic has dramatically changed crime patterns, that we see this concentrated in downtown areas where people have not been, and it’s moved away from residential areas, apparently, because we’re seeing a very low number of offences. But the issues are more complicated than the member represents, and we need to do the work to identify what is happening and to respond accordingly.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
S. Bond: Thank you very much.
We should talk about what details were left out of the Attorney’s answer when I raised the issue of this letter. Because he can conveniently dismiss the concerns that people have across British Columbia, but he knows full well that across this province, every single day, there are acts of violence. There is theft.
Communities are concerned. In fact, the Attorney dismissed our questions last month. I will quote him: “The allegations the member is making, the anecdotes that he is delivering, are not backed up by the statistics.” Well, apparently, all the Attorney had to do was to actually read the letter from 13 mayors across British Columbia, and he would have a whole raft of statistics.
Let’s look at the details under this Attorney’s watch. The time it takes for the province to review police files since 2017 has increased by 118 percent. The number of charge assessments that are looked at has increased by 75 percent. No charge assessments has increased by 75 percent. And since 2017, the number of accused approved to go to court has dropped by 26 percent.
Not my words, not my statistics. The concerns of 13 mayors across British Columbia written to this Attorney. In Prince George, one individual has generated 262 police files in just the past 12 months. None of the files — not one — has resulted in a charge.
When will the Attorney General look at the statistics under his watch, do his job and actually take some action to deal with prolific offenders?
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question.
She insists, repeatedly, despite my extensive answers on this question, that I dismiss this as not a serious issue. That is completely incorrect. She knows it’s incorrect. I can assure her, every member of the opposition, the members of the public watching, that the Minister of Public Safety and I are working with these mayors. We’ll have more details in the weeks to come to address this issue.
The member also knows that a lot of these offences are driven by people with serious mental health and addiction issues. There’s a very close relationship between prolific property crime and these kinds of serious health problems. That’s why the complex care initiative that we are rolling out across the province is going to make a huge difference for public safety in a number of communities.
That is not the full response. We need to get to the bottom of what is happening here. I’ll provide some more statistics for the member about the complexity of what is happening. In 2011 and 2012, violent crime incidents were cleared by police at a rate of 55 percent, which means that there were recommendations to Crown for charges. In 2020, that number had dropped quite steadily over the years to the point where it’s 43 percent of charges being cleared by police. Obviously, something is happening in relation to police recommending charges to Crown counsel.
I agree with the member that we can look at what Crown counsel is doing and make sure that it’s being responsive to the needs of the public. But I do need to underline the complexity of what we’ve seen over the pandemic and the fact that the member is raising these important issues in the context of overall crime rates in property crime. They’re the lowest they’ve been since at least 2011. I don’t disagree that we can do more to drive that even lower, and I think that we should.
M. Lee: I think all members of the House acknowledge and hear from all of our constituents that members and British Columbians are feeling very concerned about feeling safe on our streets and in our neighbourhoods.
The statistics that the Attorney General requested from the 13 urban mayors he has to respect. They chose to provide this to the Attorney General, and they clearly demonstrate that things are only getting worse under the five years that this Attorney General has been doing his role. These are statistics from the 13 urban mayors who represent more than 55 percent of B.C.’s population.
Last month the Attorney General mocked our questions, saying: “I’m not surprised he has a problem with facts.” Well, here are the facts about this Attorney General’s record since 2017. All is set out in the April 5 letter from these urban mayors.
The average number of days to conclude a file has gone from 85 to 185 days. The rate of no charge assessments is 21 percent today. In 2017, it was 12 percent. The cases approved to go to court have decreased from almost 64,000 to only 47,000. Prolific offenders are being allowed to walk free to reoffend and commit increasingly brazen and violent crimes.
Why is the Attorney General enabling this catch-and-release cycle to undermine public confidence in our justice system?
Hon. D. Eby: The member comes to this place from Vancouver. Property crime and overall crime rates are at their lowest level in Vancouver since 2002 in both the total numbers of crimes and as a crime rate per 1,000 members of the population.
Now, I know that what crime has been taking place has been very concentrated and very visible, particularly in the downtown areas, and very concerning to merchants, I know, in the Chinatown area in Downtown Vancouver. These are serious issues.
There has been a shift during the pandemic about how and where crime takes place. There has been an increase in violent crime. Now, I’ll say the statistics are less helpful than they could be, in the sense that Statistics Canada changed their measurement criteria between 2018 and 2019. But I don’t think anyone disputes that in Vancouver, we’ve seen an increase in random, violent attacks.
Both the Solicitor General and I have been working with the Vancouver police department to identify these two categories of offenders — serious, prolific property offenders and people engaging in these random, violent attacks — to find out how the province can be more supportive of the efforts in Vancouver to address these issues. The Solicitor General also addressed issues with the Vancouver police budget to make sure that they have the resources they need to deal with this.
I’ll remind the member — I know that he knows, because he’s a lawyer — that we have had significant changes in the law related to administration of justice offences over this time period that I’ve been Attorney General. It came from the Supreme Court of Canada in Bill C-75 out of the federal government, which changes Crown’s approval processes around administration of justice offences. It’s the law of Canada, and the Crown is bound to adhere to that.
Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.
M. Lee: This Attorney General has been hearing from these 13 urban mayors since December, by his own reports. He’s in these discussions. He’s having these consultations, yet he’s failing to act. These 13 urban mayors represent communities including Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Coquitlam, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George, Victoria, the district of Saanich and Nanaimo.
The Attorney General can deflect all he wants, but that’s not going to give answers to these 13 urban mayors. They have set out a roadmap of solutions that this Attorney General needs to take action on. The Attorney General’s failed policies are eroding confidence in the administration of our justice system. He has failed in his primary duty.
This is what the mayors of 13 urban cities across B.C. wrote in their April 5 letter: “Prolific offenders are eroding the sense of public safety and trust in the justice system by residents in all our communities.” There is no accountability or meaningful consequences for random attacks, random assaults, rampant shoplifting and violence.
Why won’t the Attorney General act now to get violent criminals off our streets and keep people safe in our communities?
Hon. D. Eby: The member knows — I know he knows, because he repeated it back — that we met with the urban mayors. We heard from them their concerns. We asked them for additional detail and information about what was happening in their communities, and now we’re working with them on solutions.
I’m trying to imagine a better way to address any provincial issue. So I welcome his suggestions as part of this process as we move forward, but to categorize that as failing to take action when actually, the reason he has a letter in his hands is because I asked for it.
HOSPITAL CAPACITY ON
VANCOUVER
ISLAND
S. Furstenau: Yesterday Brishti Basu from Capital Daily broke the news that greater Victoria hospitals are so overrun that they are considering renting hotel rooms for patients. An internal memo from Island Health outlines that hospitals are facing an extreme over-census situation, and Dr. Jeff Unger says: “I’ve never seen it this bad in the 22 years I’ve been working in Victoria.” He said that two weeks ago. It’s gotten worse.
People on Vancouver Island are already dealing with a severe family doctor shortage. They can’t get into a walk-in clinic, and now we learn that hospitals are so full that Island Health is preparing to rent hotel rooms.
My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister assure people on Vancouver Island and across B.C. that they won’t be turned away when they need health care?
Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for her question.
At no time would any patient requiring acute care be sent to a hotel room, period. The memo that the member refers to was a memo to rehab coordinators who are in charge of discharge. We do, from time to time, support people who are ready for discharge, but there are varied challenges in either their homes or their circumstances that make it challenging for them to be discharged.
What the memo was saying was if there are people ready to be discharged, let’s take every means to support them in that discharge. That’s what the purpose of the memo was for. It wouldn’t make any sense to take acute care patients and to put them in hotel rooms. That’s not what we’ve done. That’s not what we’re doing. While it is an extremely challenging time in health care, given the pandemic, given the overdose public health emergency, our hospitals on Vancouver Island continue to be ready to serve patients who need care.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
COVID-19 IMPACT ON HOSPITALS
AND ACCESS TO DATA
S. Furstenau: This is, fundamentally, a transparency issue. In her article, Brishti Basu wrote: “Since the province stopped sharing daily COVID-19 hospitalization data and pulled back on how much information they share, it is impossible to figure out how the virus is affecting hospitalizations in real time.” So we find out from the press, not from the government.
My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. Does the minister believe that the public should be informed by government rather than by memos and the press about the state of our hospitals and the burden that COVID-19 continues to have on our health care system?
Hon. A. Dix: The answer is yes. The answer is yes, we do, on a regular basis, including detailed information not just about COVID-19 in our hospital but the state of hospital capacity in every part of B.C., which I’ve been reporting on, including to the hon. member, for more than two years.
Yes, transparency is important, and transparency is important to this extent. When you’re describing a situation in a memorandum, to say an important sentence: “Please let your coordinator know if you have any patients requiring extraordinary measures to facilitate discharges from hospital.” And then list the measures that include, potentially, providing a hotel room if they’re not able to go home under appropriate circumstances. This is something that occurs on a regular basis to support discharges.
The member’s initial assertions in her question are not correct. It is important to have transparency. It is very important to have transparency and to provide a proper assessment of the circumstances in our public health care system today. These measures of dealing with capacity in our health care system — we have been taking them for two years.
The members will recall, in the third week in March of 2020, the decision, the very difficult decision, at that time to cancel non-urgent scheduled surgeries. That was indeed to ensure that there was space in our hospitals so that people could come and get the care they need.
That is what was happening then, and that is what continues to happen. What is happening in association with that, on that issue of surgery and on surgical renewal, is the expansion of our surgical capacity to make up these delays as quickly as we possibly can.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
R. Merrifield: I feel like the Attorney General has missed the point of our questions. The mayors’ letter shows how a single prolific offender can have hundreds of police files yet, time after time, is released back into the community.
Page 2 actually describes how one offender in Kelowna has generated 346 RCMP files and received 29 convictions for theft and assault, is routinely released with conditions but subsequently reoffends. In my community, 15 prolific offenders are responsible for — get this — over 1,000 negative police contacts just in one year alone. Kelowna has stepped up by increasing the police budget by 84 percent. But the Attorney General is still missing in action.
When will the Attorney General do his job, protect the administration of justice and keep our communities safe?
Hon. D. Eby: When somebody goes to court — the member talks about 29 separate charges — the decision about whether or not that person goes to jail is made by a judge who is independent of government, independent of me as Attorney General. I know that the member knows that.
That doesn’t take away from the challenge that she illustrates, or suggests that the province or the government doesn’t have any opportunity to address this serious issue. It’s why we’re working with the mayors on this issue. That’s why we have complex care to address the mental health and addiction issues that drive some people to be involved again and again in the justice system, in a rotating door system.
I believe that there are other opportunities for us to address these issues. But it’s not going to change the state of the federal law. It’s not going to be able to force judges to send people to jail. They’re not going to do that. The next steps for us as a province, within our jurisdictional authorities, are to work with the municipalities to identify those opportunities.
I know this isn’t a unique issue. I know that when the opposition was on this side of the House, they had a pilot project on chronic offenders as well. So this is an issue that, as a province, we need to address. I look forward to working with the cities and, frankly, any suggestions from the opposition about moving forward. I assure the member that we’ll have more to say about this in the weeks to come.
B. Banman: In the April 5 letter from the mayors, it provides example after example after example. In my community of Abbotsford, people no longer feel safe. Here’s a prime example of why.
There was a criminal with outstanding warrants who was recently arrested for the second time within weeks. He has been charged with serious crimes, including theft of a motor vehicle, robbery, assault, assault with weapons, resist and obstruction of a police officer. Despite three prior convictions for breach of probation, he was issued a release order, which he breached the very same day.
How many times does a prolific offender need to be arrested for breaching conditions before people lose faith in the justice system, and they lose faith in this government and, in particular, this Attorney General?
Hon. D. Eby: The courts apply a federal law, Bill C-75, which dramatically changed the approach to administrative offences, which is breach of conditions. There was also a Supreme Court of Canada decision, which the courts also applied, called Zora, so we’re working within that federal framework. The member intentionally conflates those things with what the province can do.
That doesn’t mean that the province doesn’t have responsibility or opportunity here to address these issues. The Crown will bring the cases forward to court. They will apply the federal law. When we’re talking about the decision to release somebody back to the community by a judge, that decision is taken by the judge.
I’m not sure what else I can tell the member about that. It’s obviously a disturbing case. We have a huge opportunity, I think, in terms of prolific offenders, to drive property crime numbers down. I think that complex care and addressing the mental health and addiction needs of some folks is really going to help that.
For others, we’ll continue working with police and Crown, as we have been since the mayors raised this issue with us.
M. Morris: The revolving door of justice with prolific offenders has been getting progressively worse every year, particularly since this government took office five years ago. We see the statistical data going up all the time.
The Attorney relies upon Bill C-75. He relies upon the limitations that are placed upon them by legislation and by the court decisions, but that has always existed since we’ve had courts in this great country of ours. Attorneys General across Canada have always adjusted how prosecutors do their job, how police do their job, in order to comply with the changes to the legislation that the courts lay out.
Three weeks ago in Prince George, a prolific offender in a stolen vehicle rammed a police vehicle while trying to avoid arrest. At the time, he was wanted on an outstanding warrant and had been arrested and released numerous times over the past two years.
Each time the offender failed to attend court or comply with release conditions, including being prohibited to possess firearms, and ignored the court orders, bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. At the time of this most recent arrest, he was in possession of body armour and a prohibited high-calibre rifle with a high-capacity magazine loaded and ready to fire. He resisted arrest with police.
Will the Attorney act now to protect the public and the police from prolific offenders and restore faith in our justice system?
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question.
The member says that I rely on the law and court decisions. That’s my job as Attorney General, to do those things. It’s not an excuse. I think the province has an opportunity here to assist in addressing these issues, but it is a fact and a factor in the challenge that we face here.
I agree with the member that Attorneys General need to work within that framework and be creative within that framework, which is why we’re working with the Minister of Public Safety and with the mayors on exactly this issue.
I disagree with the member that the statistics show that things are getting worse and worse. In fact, in the most recent year we have data for, the overall number of offences is at the lowest level it has been in Vancouver in the last decade, and in the province, for property crimes, since 2011. There are issues. I don’t pretend there aren’t issues, but to misrepresent what’s happening in community at a provincial level is not correct.
Finally, I know the member is aware that when we formed government, we increased authorities under the Civil Forfeiture Act that enable the province to seize property, to make presumptions when there’s a firearm in a vehicle, when there’s body armour in a vehicle, to seize that vehicle, to seize that property, which were not authorities that police had when the opposition was on this side of the House.
Within provincial authorities, we are acting creatively to address these issues, and we will continue to work with the mayors to do those things.
K. Kirkpatrick: This Attorney General continues to say: “We are working on things. We’re in conversations. We’re discussing.” But this government needs to take it from that place to actual implementation and taking actions.
We need to go back to the basics. People are scared in their own communities. They’re scared of going out in the evenings. They don’t know what’s going to happen. They’re scared. That is what the reality is in British Columbia. Communities across this province are experiencing more violent and random assaults.
Here in Victoria, there were four random assaults last Tuesday, including a man who struck a staff member of a restaurant with a metal object. That was one block away from this Legislature. Prolific offenders do not face consequences. One such offender, in Victoria, generated 55 charges that were submitted to the Prosecution Service. Of those charges, only 22 convictions were received, 23 were stayed, and eight of those charges were not approved. These were for serious charges, including assault.
Why is the Attorney General letting these offenders be continually released without consequences? How are you going to make British Columbians feel safe in their own communities?
Hon. D. Eby: I think the member raises a number of important issues.
First of all, someone who has 22 convictions in a court…. Obviously, there are some pretty serious issues going on with that individual. The court is applying the federal law in each of those convictions in deciding whether or not to send somebody to jail. As the provincial Attorney General, I can’t tell the judge what to do. The federal law, the federal Criminal Code, is what the judge is applying.
Clearly, mental health and addiction issues are playing an outsized role in relation to prolific offenders, and we think that addressing those issues through proactive mental health services is going to make a significant difference in the community.
We also know that one of the reasons people feel unsafe is that in their downtown areas, where foot traffic is way down, mental health and addiction, people suffering in public — talking to themselves, shouting at passersby — creates a feeling of a lack of safety. Addressing those mental health issues through complex care is going to make a significant difference.
Those same urban mayors that we have been working with on this issue are the mayors who are celebrating the rollout of complex care to provide those base support services for folks to increase community perceptions of safety. I think it’s going to be really important.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: I know the members are passionate about this issue. I feel passionate about it too. But I don’t believe that misrepresenting what the province’s authorities are or what’s happening in communities, in terms of the broader picture, is helpful. I agree there’s an issue. Let’s focus on that.
T. Shypitka: The Attorney General can be as dismissive as he wants to be on this issue. It’s absolutely….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s hear the question, please.
T. Shypitka: We’re hearing from the Attorney General on issues that are real, in real time right now. People on this side of the House are fed up. Our communities are fed up. We want action right now.
The city of Cranbrook is facing a massive increase in issues of crime and disorder that are hurting our people and our local businesses. I’ve been to several town halls on this already, and there are more to come. The people are upset and deservedly so. Assaults are up 13 percent, vehicle and bike thefts are up 150 percent, and commercial break and enters are up 280 percent.
My community sincerely feels the Attorney General isn’t taking crime seriously. When will the Attorney General actually act to fix this problem and restore Cranbrook’s confidence in the justice system?
Hon. D. Eby: Well, I thank the member for his question.
I try my best in this question period to be responsive to the questions that members are asking and to have a dialogue about these things. I’ll admit some frustration when I can’t knock members off their script so that we can actually have that conversation. But I do understand it is question period.
I am well aware of the issues in Cranbrook. In fact, I met with the mayor of Cranbrook personally. When I read some comments that he made in the media, I reached out to him, and I said: “Let’s meet and talk it through.” I met with him, and then I wrote to Cranbrook city council after that meeting with the mayor. I said: “Can I meet with you? Can I hear about what’s happening in your community? Can we act on those things?”
I’ll acknowledge some surprise that I had to read in the media the concerns about Cranbrook when the member is right there and he can come over any time. But in any event, I am doing the work.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. D. Eby: I am doing the work.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. D. Eby: I was happy to brief the members of Cranbrook council about complex care, about our 3,000 supplements to get people inside with wraparound supports to deal with the very serious homelessness issue that they’re facing in Cranbrook, which inextricably, with mental health and addiction, is tied to some of the challenges that community is facing.
I was really glad to hear directly from the mayor and council. We had a very productive conversation. Since then, members of the public service, as well as B.C. Housing staff, have been working with Cranbrook administrative staff to address the issues in that community. I look forward, frankly, to celebrating some good progress on those issues with Cranbrook city council as we work through them.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report Fraud Risk Management: Site C Dam and Hydroelectric Energy Project and the Representative for Children and Youth’s report Beyond Compliance: Ensuring Quality in Care Planning.
Orders of the Day
Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of Supply estimates, Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 14 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:05 a.m.
On clause 3 (continued).
J. Rustad: Before our end of day yesterday, there were some questions that were being asked of the minister with regard to some legal issues and the legal ramifications of hunting. In particular, there was some exchange between the minister and me. We were discussing First Nations’ right to hunt and whether or not that extends.
I want to start today off asking the minister a variation of the question from yesterday, which is whether or not Indigenous people have the right to hunt in British Columbia outside of their traditional territory.
Hon. K. Conroy: Even though it’s a different question, we did answer this yesterday. First Nations have the right to hunt when it’s associated with their traditional territory. If they want to hunt on another nation’s traditional territory, they are invited as a guest by the host to hunt on that traditional territory.
J. Rustad: To be clear, the question is whether they have the right to hunt without being invited into another traditional territory. If Indigenous people connected to a First Nation have the right to hunt and gather, under section 35, within their traditional territory, do they have that right to be able to hunt in other locations within British Columbia, outside of their traditional territory, without being invited?
Hon. K. Conroy: Actually, the member’s question doesn’t relate to this bill.
J. Rustad: It does relate to this bill, I would argue. The reason it relates to this bill is that I’m trying to determine whether or not this bill is required in this Legislature, whether First Nations have the right to hunt or not. If they don’t have the right to hunt, then I understand what this bill is trying to do. If they do have the right to hunt, then I don’t understand what this bill is trying to do, which is why I’m asking this question.
Further to that question, there are many Indigenous people — people who have identified as Indigenous people — who are not connected to a particular First Nation, whether it’s bloodline or other issues in the province of British Columbia. That may include Métis, and it may include people who are not Métis. I’m trying to understand how they fit into this bill in terms of their rights to hunt within the province of British Columbia, as Métis or as Indigenous people in a province of Canada, and whether or not their rights are superseded by what’s going on in this bill.
I’m trying to understand what that lay of the land is so I can understand why this bill was put in place. I would ask the minister if she would consider answering the question I put to her.
Hon. K. Conroy: The bill does not change or affect a nation’s section 35 right to hunt. First Nations that enter into sheltering agreements between themselves have done so, historically, for a long time. Those rights are enshrined in the constitution. The purpose of this bill is to allow the host and guest First Nations to ask the province to support their sheltering agreements.
J. Rustad: In this legislation, under clause 3, it defines a guest as being a member of a First Nation and determines that “‘first nation’ means a first nation whose traditional territory includes land within the boundaries of British Columbia.”
Perhaps the minister could confirm that only members who are recognized as members of a First Nation, even though they are Indigenous…. Sorry. Let me rephrase that. As I say, there are many Indigenous people in the province of British Columbia that may not be connected or recognized as being a member of a particular First Nation because of bloodline. There are many issues in the province in terms of First Nations. This bill doesn’t go into those issues, obviously. I’m not asking about that, specifically.
What I’m wondering is…. Because of the definition of a guest meaning a member of a First Nation…. Does that mean that the Indigenous people in the province of British Columbia that are not directly connected with a First Nation are not eligible to be guests in terms of hunting in British Columbia?
Hon. K. Conroy: I have already answered this. It’s up to the member of the First Nation to recognize the members of their First Nation.
J. Rustad: I’m just going to pass it over to the member for Skeena in a moment, but I do want to have one quick follow-up question associated with that. Perhaps the minister would be…. It should be fairly quick to be able to confirm, then, that Métis or other people who are not necessarily attached to a First Nation do not have the right to be guests as part of a shelter agreement. By definition here, it says a guest has to be a member of a First Nation. So I just would like the minister to confirm that.
Hon. K. Conroy: I have answered this before as well. Members of the Métis Nation are not recognized as hosts and guests in the purpose of this bill.
Interjection.
Hon. K. Conroy: I have answered this before. Métis Nations are not recognized as hosts or guests in the purpose of this bill.
E. Ross: I’m just trying to understand what I’ve known for decades, both as a hunter, a harvester, a fisherman, as well as somebody that truly studied case law pursuant to section 35 of the constitution.
The minister just made a comment in terms of this sheltering agreement under Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act, that said the sheltering agreement will not affect rights and title as it relates to a First Nation being able to hunt anywhere in B.C., essentially. The minister’s comments — correct me if I’m wrong — said that this will not affect section 35 rights to hunt.
Well, yes, it does. It does affect. What you’re talking about is an agreement between a First Nation, a host First Nation, and a government that talks about hosting another First Nation in a territory for the purposes of hunting. You actually talked about giving the authority to a First Nation to restrict or allow another First Nation to go into a territory and hunt. This is under the backdrop, as well, of current laws that apply to everybody and that speak to health, safety and conservation. I’ll leave those aside for a second.
In all my years of hunting, fishing, harvesting, as well as understanding Aboriginal rights and title case law as laid out by the courts, I have never really come across any type of rule, legislation or regulation that says that I can’t hunt anywhere in B.C. — or Canada, for that matter.
If the minister is aware of something that I have missed…. I’ve hunted in many First Nation territories with no permission. I know there are a lot of First Nations across B.C. that come to my territory and hunt with no permission of the First Nation in question. The same goes for fishing.
We’re talking about rights, the right to hunt. When you’re talking about legislating the access of a First Nation to go into another First Nation territory for the purposes of hunting, then you are affecting section 35 of the constitution.
Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is some case law out there. Maybe there is some precedent that actually speaks to this. If the minister is aware of this, then could the minister basically bring that to this conversation for our purposes of understanding Bill 14?
Hon. K. Conroy: The province does not currently have jurisdiction to recognize existing sheltering agreements. The absence of legal clarity has led to varied approaches, which leads to both the wildlife management and enforcement challenges.
Sheltering agreements, by way of this law, will broaden opportunities for collaborative management, and it will clarify the application of agreed-to laws and increase transparency by actually publishing the agreements. If there’s harvesting outside of Indigenous nations traditional territory, they must abide by the Wildlife Act.
E. Ross: Thank you for that answer. I do understand that Aboriginal hunters must abide by the Wildlife Act when it relates to health, conservation and safety.
The question was really around the minister’s comments that said the sheltering agreement will not affect section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. I tried to make the point that yes, it does, because actually what you’re doing is putting limitations on the Aboriginals’ right to hunt and harvest anywhere in B.C., if not Canada currently. The sheltering agreement will actually restrict that. It’ll give access powers to a host First Nation.
The minister’s comment, unless she has some document that proves otherwise, is wrong — that it will not affect section 35 rights.
Currently under section 35, I always assumed I had the right to hunt anywhere in B.C., and I don’t need any host permission. Likewise, any First Nation that has been coming into our territory for decades has not been getting permission, has been hunting. I always assumed it was always under section 35 of the constitution, in terms of the rights.
When the minister said that the sheltering agreement will not affect section 35…. In fact, it will if this Bill 14 is actually contemplating the authority to provide or deny access for an Aboriginal to hunt in a specific territory.
The question is: does the minister truly believe, given that there’s an access provision on the floor of the Legislature today, that this sheltering agreement will not restrict the Aboriginal right to hunt as laid out in section 35 of the constitution?
Hon. K. Conroy: The member is incorrect in his assumptions. Case law shows that hunting rights are site-specific, with few exceptions. It will not affect section 35 rights, as these are agreements between nations, between traditional territories. That’s it.
E. Ross: The case law says that hunting is site-specific. Can the minister tell me which case law she is referring to, so I can read it myself? I must have missed that in the last 15 years of reading case law. Which case law are we talking about in hunting, as an Aboriginal right, being site-specific?
Hon. K. Conroy: Courts have indicated that Aboriginal rights to harvest are site-specific, including these Supreme Court of Canada cases…. I’m going to list the actual cases so they’re in the record for the member: R. v. Adams, 1996, 3 SCR 101; R v. Côté, 1996, 3 SCR 139; Mitchell v. MNR, 2001, SCC 33; R. v. Powley, 2003, SCC 43; and R. v. Sappier and R. v. Gray, 2006, SCC 54.
These cases have indicated that the exercise of traditional harvesting activities is restricted to the specific geographical location where they are traditionally exercised.
E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. That is quite enlightening. I did not know that.
What I understand, then, is that essentially, that will be part of the foundation of what the sheltering agreement will propose to formalize in a legislative legal agreement between the First Nation and the B.C. government — I just want to confirm this — but we’re also talking about the province’s duty.
I’m getting this understanding from the province that there are two purposes here: to formalize the sheltering agreement for a First Nation to do this formally with guest First Nations, but also to basically put together a framework that formalizes the enforcement and management of the resource overall, on behalf of all British Columbians. Am I correct in stating this?
Hon. K. Conroy: We just want to clarify that we’re getting the right answer for the member. Is the member asking what will formally be recognized within a sheltering agreement?
E. Ross: It was just clarification. I’m trying to understand, at a broader level, what the province is trying to achieve. I understand they’re trying to formalize a sheltering agreement that allows a host First Nation to allow a guest First Nation hunter to come into their territory, within the confines of British Columbia, of course.
I’m also trying to understand…. Is the purpose, as well, parallel to that first purpose, to actually formalize the management and enforcement regulations of B.C.? I heard the minister mention it a few times yesterday. Is that a dual purpose, to actually formalize the regulations of B.C. when it relates to safety, for example, or the regulations under the Wildlife Act?
Hon. K. Conroy: At the request of the nations — it’s important to recognize that it’s at the request of the nations — the intent of this bill is to support greater clarity about how the practice of sheltering can occur in a way that provides First Nations with confidence that conservation officers and others will respect this practice and in a way that supports the conservation and proper management of hunting opportunities in British Columbia.
J. Rustad: Under clause 3, it talks about: “The minister and the governing body of a first nation may enter into an agreement respecting hunting in the traditional territory of that first nation by members of other first nations.”
Yesterday we talked about this in terms of what the role of government would be, in terms of this agreement. Does the government then take on the responsibility, in terms of a sheltering agreement being created, to determine the status of an individual who is being a guest in this agreement? In other words, does the minister look to see where that individual is actually registered as a band member and providing some sort of evidence as part of the agreement that would then be signed off by the minister?
Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve canvassed this, and I’ve already answered this question. I’ll answer it again. It is not the government’s responsibility; it’s at the determination of the host First Nation.
J. Rustad: Actually, we didn’t canvass that specific question, but I appreciate the fact that the minister did respond with an answer.
The question to the minister is: how are these agreements enforced if there is no evidence or any other information provided as part of the agreement that guarantees that the intent has been followed?
Hon. K. Conroy: The purpose of this bill is to allow host and guest First Nations to ask the province to support the sheltering agreements. Enforcement is an element of the agreement. It would require identification of the individuals.
J. Rustad: Identification of the individual. Okay, so I’m…. You know, I can’t say my name. I’m Joe Smith, who has entered into an agreement as a member of a particular First Nation — right? — and we’ve entered into a sheltering agreement.
Now, the question. The minister just said they’ll provide identification. What identification is it that is required to be shown as part of enforcement? Is it the status of a First Nation, of an Indigenous person and their related First Nation? Is it just their name?
What is the information that is being required? I’ve asked this question. I just asked the minister, you know, what information the minister is going to have to look at before signing off on an agreement, and the minister said that’s between the nations in terms of that. But now somebody has got to go out and enforce it, and the minister is saying that they’re required to provide information. So what is that?
It seems to me that if you’re an enforcement officer who’s going out and asking for the information of somebody that’s hunting in traditional territory, and they say, “I’ve entered into a sheltering agreement….”
The minister said that they have to provide that information or some sort of information to the enforcement officer. I’m trying to understand what that information includes. Does it include the information of the status and the agreement and all these components so that the enforcement officer can then verify that this person has met the requirements of being a guest in the agreement?
If that information provided to the enforcement officer is required, then is that same information required by the minister as entering into this agreement so the minister can verify that the agreement is meeting the conditions of this act? I’m not sure.
The minister looks confused. I see that the deputy is nodding his head, so maybe the deputy understands.
I’m just trying to understand, as these agreements are made, what the minister is requiring, the information to come forward to be presented, before the minister signs off. Then, of course, how is that information then enforced — so that we understand what the rules are and how the minister has signed off on these agreements?
Hon. K. Conroy: Elements of the agreements related to enforcement are at the discretion of the Indigenous governing body. It may be as direct as a permit with appropriate ID.
Yes, it’s at the purview of the Indigenous body, detailed in the sheltering agreement. All of this will be further outlined and finalized in the work done to implement the regulations by September 1 of ’22, of this year. As I said earlier, these are all things that we did discuss yesterday.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES
AND LOW CARBON INNOVATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
On Vote 23: ministry operations, $109,556,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
T. Shypitka: I guess we’re going to wrap up with mining here before lunch. I always get a little ahead of myself with mining. I could take two or three days on it. It’s such a fascinating industry that we have here in B.C. We’ve got such a great industry.
I’ll just kind of finish with funding to our geoscience industry, whether it’s public or private. I guess the first question to the minister is: where in the budget is the funding for geoscience, either Geoscience B.C. or the B.C. geological survey? How much is in the budget to support those?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much for the question. The geological survey is funded at the same level as the previous year. There hasn’t been an uplift there.
The emerging challenge is the issue of critical minerals. The federal government, in its budget, just very recently announced that they are going to be funding critical minerals strategies across the country to the tune of $3.8 billion. The deputy minister was in Ottawa last week, initiating those discussions with the appropriate ministries to make sure that British Columbia is able to participate in that anticipated funding.
At the present time, there’s no funding for Geoscience B.C. in this year’s budget.
T. Shypitka: Yes, I knew that answer. It’s quite troubling, actually. This is the third year, I believe. There was some funding in 2019 for Geoscience B.C., and for the last three years, they’ve been left cold.
It really does go against the grain of what the Mining Jobs Task Force recommended. On page 46, section 7, they talk about the unique blend that we have here in B.C., with our geological surveying. We have a dual organization delivery structure here in B.C. It’s quite unique, and it’s quite well regarded as being very progressive.
When Geoscience B.C. got together in 2005, we weren’t quite sure how that would work between the public and Geoscience B.C. But it’s worked out quite well, and the Mining Jobs Task Force mentions it. They talk about a review of this dual organization delivery structure.
There were some questions that they wanted to ask. This new coordinated approach to geoscience should be informed by a review assessing — first question: “What is an appropriate amount to be spending on geoscience annually? What should the delivery methods be, assuming the values of collaboration, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, quality and transparency?” Another question was: “Is the B.C. geoscience framework adequate to support mineral exploration in B.C.?”
I guess that will be the question to the minister. What is an appropriate amount to be spending on geoscience annually?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you for the question. Perhaps if I could briefly recapitulate some of what we discussed yesterday.
The focus of the department was initially to permit major mines. We discussed yesterday the steps forward that have been made and a number of the permits for major mines that have been issued. The next step was an expansion and beginning to tackle regional mines. We had an extensive discussion yesterday about hiring the 19 personnel to deal with some of the challenges in that process.
The next step, which we’re dealing with in the immediate future, is the geological survey. Coming along, coincidentally…. Some of that, it’s expected, will be funded internally. There will be a Treasury Board submission. It’s in preparation. The federal government has initiated, as I said, a process for critical minerals, and $3.8 billion was spoken of in the federal budget. As I’ve said, the deputy was in Ottawa last week initiating that discussion.
That’s the workplan. It’s perhaps important to note, as well, that given climate change and climate adaptation, geological data is uniquely positioned to help in the prediction of flood and fire and landslides, for example, given that some of that depends on local geological conditions. So there’s an increased desire to have the geological survey assist in the prediction and preparatory work for taking precautions for communities in that area as well.
That’s the workplan. The geological survey has a major role to play in that. It will be the focus of activity in the coming budget year.
T. Shypitka: It just seems to be a recurring theme with this minister, really — to answer a question with a non-answer. The question was clear, and it’s something that the Mining Jobs Task Force have been asking for years now. This report came out. What is an appropriate amount to be spending on geoscience annually? I think it’s a fair question, and I don’t think it needs a stepped approach.
I mean, the minister just said that the first priority was focusing on major mines. Then it was on permitting. Then it’s the geological data that we need. He told us about the urgency, with forest fires and things like that. The mapping is required for those things. I think these things need to be handled not step by step by step but synergistically. They need to be in tandem with one another, not one phase to another.
Now, I don’t know if the ministry doesn’t have enough resources. Maybe the minister can just admit to that. Maybe we need more money. Maybe we need more funding into Energy and Mines. I’d be all for that. But this stepped approach, to me…. I just don’t see the value. I don’t see how we’re getting ahead anywhere.
Geological data is critical. The minister just mentioned the critical mineral strategy that Canada is going to be funding — $3.8 billion. That’s great. They realize the importance. We need Geoscience B.C. on board. We need to restore this dual organizational delivery structure that we have here in B.C. I don’t see a lot of priority or a lot of emphasis given to putting…. They’ve been roadblocked for three years on funding, and here we go again. It’s not in the budget, and they’re left out in the wind.
They’ve got some great projects. We’re talking about low-carbon innovation in this ministry. We’re talking about the potential for geological storage of carbon dioxide up in the northeast corner of the province. It’s a great project that’s underway right now. But we need more data to map the rest of the province. We could actually be a destination for carbon storage in British Columbia. Who knows? We’ve got some deep reservoirs in B.C., which is critical for carbon storage. We can be leaders, but we don’t have the data, and we don’t have the mapping that needs to be done to make sure that happens.
We talk about the critical mineral strategy. It’s huge, not only for our low-carbon future. The critical minerals and metals are in everything that we see in our low-carbon future, such as solar panels and wind turbines and geothermal-type technologies. It all comes from critical minerals. But also for our national security — surveillance systems, satellite imagery, those types of things.
I see the Minister of Health here. He’d be interested to know that critical minerals and metals are critical for health care — diagnostic equipment, imaging, surgical tools. Those types of things all come from critical minerals and metals.
Of the 31 critical minerals that there are, I believe B.C. has about 17, 16 of them. We’re a mecca for critical minerals. So this is not only important to British Columbia, but it’s important to our national security, our health care, everything.
We don’t need a stepped approach on this. We need money in the ground right now. If that means asking for more money from the powers that be to bring this into the ministry, then maybe the minister should say that we’re underfunded or we need more resources. I’d be all for that.
The minister won’t give me a dollar amount of what’s adequate. Maybe the minister can answer another question that was in the Mining Jobs Task Force. Is the Geoscience B.C. framework adequate to support mineral exploration in B.C.?
Hon. B. Ralston: Perhaps I can just put this in perspective. Since this government came to power in 2017, there has been an uplift in this ministry every single year. In fact, the funding prior to 2017 was completely inadequate to achieve the purposes that the mining sector, both exploration and operating mines, required.
The Mining Jobs Task Force was initiated, and many, if not all, of those recommendations have been implemented. We have put more money into major mines, and those permits have been issued. We discussed that yesterday. We’ve put more money into regional offices, and with the staff uplift that’s been required through the climate action secretariat, there has been $1.8 million for climate action for some of the issues that the member raised. There’s a contract out right now for the mapping that the member refers to.
In summary, given those increments in funding every single year, to the question that the member asks — is the framework adequate to support exploration of mining in British Columbia? — the answer is yes. One could use, always, more people, but the direction is clear. The focus is now on critical minerals, and we will get support, I’m anticipating, from the federal government as well as internal resources, and a Treasury Board submission is going forward very shortly.
I’m convinced that the framework is adequate to support the growth in the sector that we want to see.
T. Shypitka: We’ve seen an uplift every year, yet permitting times have gone from 45 days for notice of work to, in some cases, three years.
We’re seeing uncertainty. We can have the argument. We can have the debate about…. Investments come in. The minister keeps pointing back to Newcrest, and that was three years ago, I believe, or something like that. That was an existing mine that was already there, that already went through the process. I’m sure there are a whole bunch of other ones that maybe he might want to try to pull out.
The fact of the matter is that the people in the province, the people I talk to…. The minister was at KEG, the Kamloops energy group conference, last week. It was great to see people back again. But if the minister was walking around and talking to the people in the crowd…. They’re scared. There’s a lot of uncertainty out there.
Permitting is taking longer, so we’re not getting bang for our buck. If we’ve got an uplift every single year, and we’re at the point we are right now, I would suggest that it’s not working. Things aren’t happening. We can debate this all day, but I’m going to have to move on, because we’ve got another group coming in here.
The minister talked about critical mineral strategy and that we’re waiting for the feds to kick in this new plan — $3.8 billion. That’s great. We can leverage some funding that way. I’m hoping a lot of that will go to Geoscience B.C. to do some work.
I guess the question to the minister is, with this critical mineral strategy that’s being implemented by the federal government, does the minister foresee funding Geoscience B.C. in the next budget?
Hon. B. Ralston: As I’ve said, our focus and our priority is the B.C. geological survey. Geoscience B.C. has the option, which I understand they’ve taken, to make application to the federal government for some of the $3.8 billion in funding. They’ve taken that step, they’ve advised us. Certainly, we will see what happens there, but that’s a step that they’ve taken.
Just given the comments that were made by the member as part of the introduction to his previous question, I just want to reiterate that last year, 344 notices-of-work permits were issued — in the last fiscal year. That falls under the category of regional permitting. Major mines permitting — we’ve gone through that: 38 major mine permit amendments issued in ’21-22; 24 for metal mines and 14 for coal mines.
The picture that the member, I think, is rather frenetically trying to create of uncertainly just isn’t accurate. It just isn’t accurate.
T. Shypitka: Well, let me guess. A message to Geoscience B.C. is that if B.C. can’t help you, then just go to the feds. That’s what I’m hearing from the minister. We’re not helping Geoscience B.C. here in British Columbia. That’s kind of sad.
The minister talked about 300 permits being issued. But as we talked about yesterday, there are 577 in the hopper. Yeah, I hope there are some permits issued. The fact of the matter is that we’ve got a lot in the queue right now, and that’s holding things up.
I know the staff is good. We’ve got a great staff, and we’ve got a great industry, like I said. We just need some political will.
I’ve heard the minister in the last couple days refer to tax incentives. Well, that’s the Minister of Finance’s issue. Of course, it is.
We’ve talked about selenium levels and needing a champion to get behind initiatives like Teck Coal, the water treatment. That’s something you’d want to talk to the Minister of Environment about.
We talked about uncertainty on clarity with First Nations, with the workplan that’s being issued and how that ties in with land wars and how that dovetails into the ministry. The response is: “Well, you’ll have to go to Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, or you’ll have to go that ministry.”
I understand there’s a lot of intersecting ministries, and there are a lot of wheels in play here. But we need someone in this ministry, with the minister, to stand up and champion those industries, and those people, to those ministries, to speak to the Minister of Finance, saying: “We need some money in the budget to get some tax incentives so that people will invest in British Columbia once again.”
I’ll head on to LNG now. Thanks for the time, you guys. It was really well appreciated. Like I said, and I mean it sincerely, we do have an excellent, excellent staff. It’s our job, here in opposition, to critique and to make government accountable.
I want to thank them very much for all their time that they do.
Before we break here for lunch, I’ll just do one last question. Maybe the minister can digest it as lunch hits us here.
The member for Boundary-Similkameen said on March 7, 2022: “If we want forward-looking and effective economic independence for First Nations, if we want good jobs for our children’s children and a world that is safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.”
The question would be: does the minister agree with the statement? Part B to that would be…. The minister of state even doubled down. The Minister of State for Infrastructure tweeted in support of the member for Boundary-Similkameen’s statement on LNG, saying the member is “acknowledging the realities of climate emergency and the existential threat that further expansion of fossil fuel extraction poses to humanity. And he’s right.”
The question to the minister would be: does the minister agree with this minister of the Crown?
Hon. B. Ralston: I’ll deal with that question after the break. Thank you for that question.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.