Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 30, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 294
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2023
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Introductions by Members
K. Paddon: This morning we raised the transgender flag in front of the Legislature with members from across the House.
It was started by Rachel Crandall in 2009 to celebrate transgender people and raise awareness of discrimination that they face. Transgender Day of Visibility is held annually on March 31, but since we’re all going to be in our communities to celebrate this day tomorrow, we took the opportunity to celebrate with some guests that I’d like to introduce today.
There are a few of them.
Alex DeForge from QMUNITY, Michael Robach from QMUNITY, Courtney Diekebrader from QMUNITY.
Dr. Aaron Devor, chair in Transgender Studies at the University of Victoria.
Adrienne Smith.
I know that one of my friends is going to be introducing Sussanne Skidmore, but I can’t help but say welcome to her as well.
To everyone who joined us this morning on the lawn, thank you very much and welcome.
Hon. R. Kahlon: We have three more guests from the Ministry of Housing that are watching question period today. We have Alyssa Teekah, we have Aman Gill and Leslie Cramer that are watching the proceedings today.
I’m hoping the House can please make them very welcome.
Hon. A. Dix: On behalf of all members of the House who took part in the Kidney Health breakfast this morning, I want to acknowledge all the people from the Kidney Foundation who have been in the building and have been meeting with us today.
We had Pia Schindler and their entire team. I want to acknowledge, in particular, Chief Michael Recalma, who brought the greeting. Chief Recalma is a kidney recipient himself and an eloquent spokesperson for the circumstance of all those who are transplant recipients.
We’ve had moving stories. We all know our colleague the Minister of Finance is an organ donor, and we all know people in our community who have done that, and as the member for Prince George–Valemount very eloquently said this morning, we want to encourage everyone who can to become a donor.
S. Bond: Thank you to the Minister of Health. I’d like to join him in welcoming members from the Kidney Foundation here today. We certainly know the impact on a family, on a person, when they say they are undergoing that kidney journey. It’s very difficult.
I just want to thank Pia Schindler and the team for reaching out right across the province to make sure that people, no matter where they live, get support, encouragement and resources.
As the Minister of Health said, one of the things that’s most important is considering organ donorship. I would really encourage all of us as we move toward Green Shirt Day, which will happen in just a very short period of time in honour of Logan Boulet.
I want to thank the member for Shuswap, who has done such an exceptional job in encouraging all of us to become organ donors. If there’s one thing I think we can do to support people on that very difficult journey, it’s to consider being an organ donor.
We again thank the foundation for their important work.
Hon. J. Whiteside: Indeed, it is a real treat for me today to have a friend, neighbour and ally in the gallery visiting us today. Sussanne Skidmore is here. Sussanne was actually able to join many of us who were out on the front lawn this morning, celebrating the Transgender Day of Visibility.
As the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Sussanne is a fierce advocate. She is a fierce ally. She stands up for workers’ rights, for human rights, in our community and across the province. We are so fortunate to have her as a neighbour in New Westminster.
Would the House please join me in making Sussanne feel welcome.
Hon. H. Bains: In the House today I’m really honoured to introduce to you…. We have the voice of construction workers coming here from across the province. The B.C. Building Trades executives are here to meet with me, to meet with the Premier and other ministers. This morning they are here to watch us, as they call it, to see sparks fly. They are here.
Brynn Bourke, from B.C. Building Trades.
Al Phillips, UA Local 170.
Roy Bizzutto, Cement Masons and plasterers.
Brian Cochrane, IUOE Local 115.
Mark Derten, B.C. Regional Council of Carpenters.
Geoff Higginson, Bricklayers and Allied Crafts.
Dan Jajic, district council 38.
Richard Manglesdorf, Sheet Metal Local 280.
Miro Maras, Millwright Local 2736.
Jim Noon, UA Local 324.
Jason Pedersen, Sheet Metal Local 276.
Mandeep Saggu, IBEW Local 213.
Ryan Starchuk, Pile Drivers Local 2404.
Phil Venoit, IBEW Local 230.
Doug Parton, Ironworkers; Paul Beacom, Ironworkers; Lindsay Maskell, Ironworkers.
Jeremy Allingham, B.C. Building Trades; Layne Clark, B.C. Building Trades; Julianne Losito, B.C. Building Trades.
Russ Alexander, IBEW Local 230; Kale Anguish, IBEW Local 230.
These are the people who build British Columbia. They continue to build our infrastructure. Please help me and give them a very, very warm welcome.
P. Milobar: I rise today to introduce a couple of people that have travelled here from Kamloops. Margaret Hyslop has had an over-50-year time span now, advising various governments of all political stripes in this place, on matters that are important to the Indigenous communities throughout British Columbia. She’s down here with her husband, Mark.
Will the House please welcome Drs. Margaret and Mark Hyslop.
Hon. D. Coulter: I have two introductions. First, I’d like to welcome Jason Lum, who is the Fraser Valley Regional District chair. He’s also a Chilliwack city counsellor. He is one of my constituents and also my cousin.
Would the House please welcome Jason to this place today.
I’d also like to introduce business manager Miro Maras from Millwrights Local 2736. He’s a sponsor of close to 100 millwright apprentices throughout B.C. Mr. Maras is also the president of the Pacific Regional Maintenance Council, which just recently announced, with Waiward Gitga’at, that they will be a major partner with LNG Canada on maintenance of the facility after construction. Under the PRMC, building trades unions will continue to provide good, unionized jobs with a workforce that is diverse and inclusive for years to come.
If everyone would welcome Miro to the House.
Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have some special guests: George Harvie, who is the Metro Vancouver board chair and also the mayor of the city of Delta; John McEwen, Metro Vancouver board vice-chair and also the mayor of the village of Anmore; Jerry Dobrovolny, Metro Vancouver commissioner and chief administrative officer; and Sandra Jansen, Metro Vancouver general manager of external relations.
They are here to talk about their priorities with different ministries. Metro Vancouver received over $50 million from the growing communities fund, and I just can’t wait to see what projects they will be building in the near future.
As well, the Premier and I made a splash announcement earlier this month that we are providing Metro Vancouver with $250 million in funding to upgrade the Iona Island wastewater treatment plant in Richmond. I know they are hard at work. The strong relationships that we have between the regional partners across Metro Vancouver have made this funding a reality.
Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
Hon. M. Rankin: I have two constituents joining us in the House today, Lucy and Jonathan Mears. Lucy was a constituency assistant of mine when I first was elected and had served previously with the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca for many, many years. They actually met at university.
She has now retired and has become fully engaged in the FIRST Robotics movement with her husband, Jonathan. She serves on the board of FIRST B.C. as a co–volunteer coordinator of the Canadian Pacific regional, and they are involved in all levels of FIRST Robotics.
Earlier this week the member for Kelowna West highlighted that Victoria held the FIRST robotics tournament recently, in which Lucy was very, very involved in organization and showcasing the amazing robotics teams from around the world.
Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. N. Cullen: Today joining us in the House is Charmaine Thom, spokesperson for the Taku River Tlingit First Nation.
Jìnìk is a leader within her community, the very far, far northwest quarter of our province. She is also a leader across First Nations in bringing people together. She has travelled a long way to join us here to talk with myself and many other members of government and others about the importance of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and what they represent in terms of leadership for our province in bringing people together.
Would the House please join me in making spokesperson Thom feel very welcome.
Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today are Bob and Lara McDonald. Bob is the retiring director of extended producer responsibility in the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, and he has spent his entire 32 years of public service in waste prevention and recycling.
Bob’s work has helped further B.C.’s growing reputation as the North American leader in extended producer responsibility with programs that support the circular economy as well as our CleanBC plastics action plan. Our program serves as a model for many other jurisdictions, and Bob deserves huge credit for that.
I just want to say that in the years I’ve worked with Bob, his briefings have been fulsome, they’ve been sharp, and they’ve been humorous, and it’s been a great pleasure to work with Bob. I understand that in retirement, he is planning to live in the country with his family in Shawnigan Lake, when he’s not playing hockey or building an off-grid cabin on the Sunshine Coast.
Will the House please join me in congratulating Bob on his retirement, thanking him for his many years of service and wishing him and Lara the very best in retirement.
S. Chandra Herbert: I want to acknowledge Adrienne Smith, who is in the House today. I’ve worked with Adrienne on human rights law, on labour law, on anything relating to folks who’ve been marginalized in our communities. Adrienne is there as an advocate with wisdom, with a strong voice and great education for anyone willing to listen.
I want to thank Adrienne for their work and really welcome them to this House.
M. Elmore: Joining us today is Brandon Yan, the executive director of Out on Screen. The Vancouver Queer Film Festival is marking the 35th anniversary this year. Out in Schools is a program that’s really taking off across B.C. Brandon was here to join us for the flag-raising to celebrate International Transgender Day of Visibility.
I ask everybody here to please give Brandon a very warm welcome.
J. Routledge: I have some guests in the gallery today. They are staff, volunteers and participants in Gaia Community Care and Wellness Society. Please join me in giving a warm welcome to Chi-Hung Percy Wong, Wan-Chung Joseph Wong, Tai-Ping Alice Au, Chun-Tim Ma, Qi-Yun Yang and Lung-Chiu Chan.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Joining us in the gallery today is a constituent from Nanaimo, Tamara Graham. She is sometimes my dance partner at Diwali. She is also a volunteer with the Kidney Foundation.
Will the House please make her very welcome.
M. Starchuk: Earlier on, the Minister of Labour had the opportunity to list off a group of people that were there, and I would like to take the time to single out one of the recruiters and organizers for the Pile Drivers 2404. He shares the same last name as me. He is the father of my grandson.
Would everybody make Ryan Starchuk welcome to the House today.
M. Lee: I’d like to also ask the House to please join me in welcoming the students, in grades 9 through 11, from Eric Hamber Secondary School, the Griffins, the school that my wife went to high school at with her siblings and my nephews.
I just met with the first delegation of three, which will be coming through our assembly this afternoon. They will be here at 10:40. I’ve given them an indication of what is going to be occurring in the House, in terms of intimate images and that legislation, which follows QP, and the importance of that.
I also want to welcome Adam Wightman, the social studies teacher that is with the group.
I look forward to all the visits with our students from Eric Hamber Secondary. I know that the member for Vancouver-Fairview would join me in that welcome as well.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 21 — CIVIL FORFEITURE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023.
Far too often people are lured into gang life with tempting images of fast cars, glamorous homes, luxury goods. By going after property owned by high-level criminal organizations and individuals, B.C.’s civil forfeiture office undermines the profit motive behind unlawful activity and sends a clear message to organized crime.
This bill contains necessary enhancements to non-conviction-based forfeiture that would address legal issues, reduce program costs and increase efficiency. The changes would respond to challenges faced by the civil forfeiture office in several areas, including efficiently collecting information needed to support the program, taking a priority interest in forfeited property, effectively dealing with financed vehicles and addressing organized crime’s significant role in the illicit cannabis market.
This bill would also create unexplained wealth orders, which are an important evidence-gathering tool that can have a powerful impact on money laundering and organized crime here in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023, 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.
BILL M219 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(GAS PRICE RELIEF)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023
P. Milobar presented a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief) Amendment Act, 2023.
P. Milobar: I move that a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief) Amendment Act, 2023, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read for the first time.
We know our province is in the middle of an affordability crisis. Every day people struggle to make ends meet, with prices for daily necessities like food, housing and fuel continuing to increase daily. Leaders must take action and provide relief, and real relief.
British Columbians pay the highest gas prices, with the highest gas taxes, in North America. This has real impacts on people, both in terms of its direct effect on commuters and vehicle owners but also as a result of its effect on rising grocery and housing costs. Our entire supply chain is affected when gas reaches record-breaking prices.
In just a few days’ time, gas prices are set to go up by another 3.26 cents per litre, as the government’s new rate for carbon tax increases comes into force. These increases come in addition to other taxes drivers already pay on fuel, including a dedicated motor fuel tax for TransLink in the Vancouver area, a dedicated motor fuel tax for the BCTFA, the provincial motor fuel tax, the federal excise tax and the GST.
The bill I am reintroducing today would allow for temporary relief from two provincewide motor fuel taxes when prices are high, relieving pressure on both the consumers and the supply chain. It’s a straightforward measure that could immediately provide help to those who desperately need it.
It’s time to get serious about making life more affordable for British Columbians.
Mr. Speaker: The question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
P. Milobar: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M219, Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief) Amendment Act, 2023, 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)
TRANSGENDER DAY OF VISIBILITY
R. Merrifield: I rise in the House today to acknowledge and celebrate International Transgender Day of Visibility. I also rise to say that love will win, and in my core, I truly believe it. Today is a special day during which we get to celebrate transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit people and educate ourselves on what we can do to be genuine allies, while removing transphobia from our communities.
The Transgender Day of Visibility was started in 2009 by American activist Rachel Crandall. Rachel wanted a day that would shine a light on the struggles of transgender people, while also highlighting their achievements. The day is now observed internationally, where we can acknowledge that living openly as your true self is something many of us take for granted.
In this House, we need to implement policies that work towards the equality and respect of transgender people in the workplace, schools and in our health care system. For too long, transgender people have had to fight for their right to equality, and that fight continues today. It takes great courage to not conform to the societal pressures that are unfairly placed on transgender and non-binary people every single day of their lives.
Today I celebrate them. Members and fellow British Columbians, it’s important that we take time to reflect and educate ourselves on the unique struggles that transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit people face every day and to celebrate their many achievements.
BRANT WILDLIFE FESTIVAL
A. Walker: Next time you’re flying back from a vacation in Mexico, imagine you’re travelling that same distance by flapping your arms. Then consider going all the way to the high Arctic by wing power.
That is exactly what brant geese do every spring, only to return again in the fall, all the way back to Mexico. Well over 10,000 kilometres, round trip — it’s an incredible journey — and Parksville-Qualicum is an important refuelling stop along the way. In Oceanside, the Brant Capital of Canada, these intrepid travellers get the respect they deserve. They get time and space to feed on our beaches, and they are the namesake of the Brant Wildlife Festival.
The spring celebration of nature was established in 1991, and this will be their 32nd year. This festival truly has something for everyone. The Arrowsmith Naturalists perform an annual brant count to keep an eye on the brant numbers. The Brant Wildlife Festival liftoff is this Friday, and I’m looking forward to attending it. They have a carving and art show that’s in its 30th year.
This year, for the first time ever, school district 69 is hosting the Brant Wildlife Children’s Festival, and many partners and sponsors, lots of natural-related displays and life-sized dioramas will be available for kids of all ages. There will be tours of the Englishman River estuary, the Heritage Forest and the Hamilton Marsh. Brant and basic bird ID and birdwatching courses will be provided by local experts, and the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre will be doing an eagle release.
There are also events at the Deep Bay Marine Field Station, The Old School House, the McMillan Arts Centre, the Qualicum Beach Museum, our local libraries, and so much more.
For those who are lucky enough to witness this incredible annual migration, when you hear that “cronk, cronk” and see a trove of brants, remember how important it is that we keep space for nature, because we are all connected.
CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION
RICHMOND
OFFICE
T. Wat: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and acknowledge an important milestone for an organization in my constituency. Last month I was honoured to attend the 15th anniversary of the Richmond branch of the Chinese Christian Mission in Canada.
This marks 15 successful years of playing a vital role in the community by offering a large variety of programs and services, including counselling, employment programs, recreation, spiritual growth, first-aid training and welcoming new immigrants to Canada, and to Richmond in particular.
The Chinese Christian Mission has a youth centre in Richmond that offers a variety of child and youth programs focused on empowering youth to become effective leaders. The centre also provides support groups for people with specific health conditions and family members going through difficult circumstances.
The Richmond office is one of the many CCM offices across Canada doing highly valuable and necessary work to serve our communities, while illuminating the multicultural mosaic at home in Richmond and beyond.
On top of many ongoing initiatives, the CCM is also raising funds for the victims of the recent earthquakes in Türkiye and Syria.
The CCM of Canada opened its headquarters in Vancouver in 1979 and has expanded across the country, with centres opening in Calgary, Montreal, Toronto and Edmonton, a true testament to the impact and demand for services offered by this mission.
I would like to thank Elaine Chun, Alice Wong and the CCM team for inviting me to celebrate their anniversary with them.
Congratulations to CCM of Richmond for 15 exceptional years of supporting our local community, and I look forward to many, many more to come.
PRINCE RUPERT REGIONAL HOSPITAL
J. Rice: Just before we get started, I wanted to mention that I was unable to attend the flag-raising for the Transgender Day of Visibility, but I did my level best to wear the appropriate colours. That’s the best I could do today. I wish I could have been there. So I just want to give a shout-out to all the trans people in my life and in B.C. that I don’t know.
Today I wanted to stand up and talk about the Prince Rupert Regional Hospital. When the Premier visited our Prince Rupert Regional Hospital just a couple of weeks ago, we talked with a full complement of the amazing team that keeps Prince Rupert Regional Hospital running.
I’m so grateful for his visit. I know he didn’t expect a shout-out today. But he talked with everyone. He talked with our kitchen staff; our cleaning staff; our Indigenous patient liaison; diagnostic imaging; the MDR, medical device reprocessing, people who clean all the equipment and tools that we use; lab techs; nurses; doctors; and administration.
I know this, and I know rural MLAs know this too, but we heard about how the job versatility of rural health care providers provides for our people. They have to wear many hats. You have to be good at a lot of different things in rural health care.
We also heard about some of the hospital infrastructure challenges. But we also heard about some of the amazing upgrades, like the new lab equipment that was recently put in place after a fire.
I can’t believe I have no time left. But I just wanted to say thanks to the Premier for coming. Sorry I talked so long.
I recently had two procedures at the hospital, and I got to see the physical challenges they spoke about. Most importantly, I was well cared for, and the people and the staff were professional.
I just want to give a big shout-out to the team at Prince Rupert Regional Hospital.
DENIS COUPLAND
A. Olsen: I was elected in Central Saanich in November 2008. That night I received a phone call from Denis Coupland. Now I was a councillor-elect. Denis wasted no time to introduce me to the important work that he and hundreds of volunteers have been doing to protect, enhance and repair our wetlands, creeks, streams and shorelines of the Saanich Peninsula.
We met for a drink at the Prairie Inn. Denis was the first person I met in my new role. He was there to shamelessly lobby me on behalf of the peninsula streams. He was direct. They needed me to support their request for a grant-in-aid.
Over the years, I grew to know Denis as a friend, a passionate advocate and activist, defending biodiversity, and Denis was a voice that nature doesn’t have. His involvement in the Hagan-KENNES watershed, working closely with my W̱SÁNEĆ relatives, inspired the effort to change the name on the map to reflect the name that has always been there: KENNES. Denis understood there is more to a name than a word.
When I became the MLA, Denis emailed me to ask about dates for the Saanich Inlet round table, making sure he coordinated the voices of the Saanich Inlet so that they could be heard during legislative breaks. “I want a date when you’re not in the Legislature so you don’t have an excuse to miss the round table,” he wrote to me.
Whether it’s fiercely defending the Saanich Inlet, streamkeeping, shorekeeping, restoring wetlands, removing invasive species, Denis Coupland was a driving force on the ground and around the table.
Denis Coupland passed away on February 18, 2023.
On behalf of all our friends and fellow volunteers, to Denis’s family — Jason, Kristen, James and Aiden — our community and our environment are better because of your father and grandfather.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
GAIA CARES DAY PROGRAM FOR SENIORS
J. Routledge: Imagine, if you will, that you are 87 years old. You are widowed. You live alone. Your health has failed significantly. You have trouble feeding and bathing yourself. You are starting to get confused about simple tasks.
You speak no English. You’ve forgotten the little English you used to know, but you are not a new Canadian. You’ve lived here since before many of us were born. You spent your working life toiling in one of the industries that has powered British Columbia’s prosperity. You raised your family here, but your family is showing signs of exhaustion, and you are beginning to lose your will to live.
Well, Gaia Cares has opened a new program in Burnaby North, and it can give you a new lease on life. It started last May as a three-hour table tennis class. Since then, it has evolved into a seniors all-round development day program that provides structured and supervised social, recreational, physical, cognitive, self-care, aesthetic and educational activities for frail seniors, post-stroke clients and those living with early signs of dementia.
The program helps to prevent social isolation and encourages independent living in the community. It also provides support and information for caregivers. The program runs every Thursday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. It is led by three staff and three to five volunteers with professional backgrounds in social work, nursing, physiotherapy, education, rehabilitation and exercise science. They communicate with participants in their first language, which is Chinese. They provide culturally appropriate hot meals and nutritional snacks.
I know that there are many more Chinese-speaking families in Burnaby North whose quality of life would be improved by being part of Gaia Cares.
Oral Questions
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES
AND IMPACT ON
BUSINESSES
S. Bond: Well, small businesses in British Columbia are literally caught in the crossfire of the brutal violence and random attacks enabled by the soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release system.
Sandeep Alexander, for example, owner of the Festal Café, has faced relentless vandalism, theft and even threats to his staff. He says: “Almost every other day, we have people walking in, threatening our staff, taking money, iPads being stolen, and multiple encounters of vandalism.” He is now being forced to close his café on Granville Street because of the random violence and chaos impacting his business.
This is happening all across the province, in every single community.
How many businesses must close due to rampant crime and vandalism, and when will the soft-on-crime Premier step up and provide some financial support for businesses that are barely hanging on due to his failed catch-and-release policies?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. All of us share the concerns around the issues that the opposition has raised and that we hear about. But I want to make it clear: everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities.
That’s why we’ve taken the initiatives and the actions that we have done in terms of increasing resources that police have asked for to be able to deal with the situation that they’re facing, the men and women who do an incredible job in terms of law enforcement in our communities right across this province — putting in place the tools that they have required.
Whether it’s ensuring that we get changes done in terms of the Criminal Code. Whether it’s ensuring that we get changes in terms of the way in which calls are dealt with, through the expansion of Car programs to deal with mental health calls, the peer-assisted care teams which we piloted on the North Shore and New Westminster. They have proved to be extremely successful and are going to go out across the province.
It’s specialized teams of police prosecutors and probation officers and corrections officials to be able to deal with people that police have identified before they get to the justice system or after they get to the justice system. All initiatives that police have requested so that they can do the job that they need to do. We take this very seriously.
Other initiatives. Today’s legislation that has been tabled, part and parcel of that work. We’ve done a lot. There is more to do, and we will continue to do it.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response.
I would ask him to take just a moment and stop and reflect on how absolutely terrifying it would be to be working in a dollar store or a convenience store or a café and have someone who is armed walk in and either threaten or actually physically assault that person. It is terrifying. It is happening everywhere, and it is because we have a soft-on-crime Premier who has a catch-and-release policy in place.
Let’s hear from John Neate, who runs JJ Bean Coffee, because he’s speaking up as well. Here’s what he had to say. “You go down Columbia Street and Hastings, and people are shooting up right in front of you, don’t even care. It’s happening everywhere, in every alley, every door, every storefront, and crime is worse than it has ever been.” Not my words. The words of John Neate.
Desperate businesses are begging for support to help mitigate the devastating impacts of vandalism and property crime. Yet the Premier and, again today, this minister simply ignore their pleas for help. How many more people need to be hurt, and how many more businesses?
The question is about mitigation to support businesses in British Columbia. How many more of them need to close before this random violence and vandalism stops?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question from the member, but I want to make it clear that since taking office, our Premier and our Attorney General have been anything other than soft on crime, have brought in initiative after initiative after initiative to deal with the challenges that communities are facing across this province.
I know the opposition wants to dismiss initiatives such as $230 million for RCMP in small and rural communities, which will help ensure that enforcement takes place in those communities that she’s talking about. The opposition wants to ignore the initiatives in terms of mental health supports, in terms of housing supports for those with mental health who are committing some of the crimes that we’ve seen in communities across this province that she talks about — that they get the help and are off the streets.
They can try and dismiss the fact of the expansion of the Car programs, which was something that they called for, which was put in place. Action was taken by this government. You called for it to be expanded, and that’s exactly what we’ve done. Those are actions and initiatives.
It’s new initiatives such as the peer-assisted care teams, which have been piloted and seen to be a success, and now we want to take it out across the province — unlike the last time, when you sat on this side of the House and there was an effective pilot program, a repeat offender management program, and you cancelled it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. M. Farnworth: We understand the challenges that businesses and communities are facing. We work with the professionals who are doing the work — the men and women in our police forces, the men and women in our social service agencies and our health care workers. We will continue to take the steps that we need to make sure that our communities are safe.
M. Lee: Let’s be clear. The initiatives after initiatives after initiatives over the past six years for this Premier are not working. The Premier’s catch-and-release system is failing. Violent random attacks have never been worse in British Columbia than they are right now under this soft-on-crime Premier. Serious assaults involving weapons or bodily harm in Vancouver are up over 30 percent compared to the 2017 to 2019 average.
Yesterday the VPD announced that despite arresting over 200 people with 4,700 previous convictions combined, many were right back out on the streets on the same day. The very same day. Small business owners in Vancouver — including in Yaletown, West End, Gastown, Chinatown and Downtown Vancouver — simply can’t handle the unchecked violence that has skyrocketed under the soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release justice system.
Joanne Zarife runs Zaatar w Zeit, which is mere steps from where Sunday’s deadly random stabbing took place. She shares similar experiences as other Vancouver businesses, with her employees feeling scared to come to work due to theft and violent confrontations. She says: “We don’t feel safe anymore.”
Can the soft-on-crime Premier tell small business owners like Joanne when she and her employees will feel safe again?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for raising this very important issue. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities. When we hear about the violence in our streets, we know that we have to take action. That’s exactly why we’re taking the actions that we’re taking. It’s exactly why we went to Ottawa to ask for changes to the Criminal Code specifically around repeat violent offenders, so we have better tools in our justice system to keep them off our streets.
It’s exactly why we’re not waiting just for Ottawa make those changes. We’re investing in the programs that we need in B.C. that we know have been effective in the past, like the repeat offenders teams that are going to circle around these repeat offenders and make sure that there’s a plan in place to keep our community safe and them off the streets.
We’re taking the actions and investing in the programs that we know have worked in the past, because we believe that everybody deserves to feel safe in our communities. We’ll keep doing that work.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.
M. Lee: We used to have a society here in British Columbia which was based on the rule of law. But now it seems we just have a state of lawlessness, all under this soft-on-crime Premier’s watch….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
M. Lee: This is what B.C. has become, where people don’t feel safe….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the question, please. Let’s hear the question.
Shhh. Let’s hear the question. Please continue.
The member will continue.
M. Lee: Well, I don’t know what the member opposite was referring to. But I know that for every member here in this House, our daughters, like mine, who work in Downtown Vancouver, blocks away from where that deadly stabbing occurred on Sunday, and young people who go to work every day in Downtown Vancouver — her co-workers, her friends — don’t feel safe. I know that each member in this House recognizes what it means when your children or your spouse or your parent is walking in the neighborhoods where they don’t feel safe anymore. That’s what it feels like.
We can, here in this chamber, talk all about initiatives. But it’s not working. It’s not working. People don’t feel safe on the streets where they live and where they go to work.
No neighbourhood has been more devastated by the Premier’s failed catch-and-release policies than Chinatown. Thefts, vandalism and social chaos on our streets spill into Chinatown on a daily basis. Twenty percent of well-established legacy businesses that have been part of the community for generations have permanently closed just in the past five years, under this NDP government.
Next month Kent’s Kitchen will join the growing list of closures, including Goldstone Bakery on Keefer Street and Mitzie’s on Pender Street.
How many businesses will close before this soft-on-crime Premier ends his catch-and-release system and supports small businesses being decimated by the cost of random violence and vandalism?
Hon. N. Sharma: Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities — women walking down the street, people in their businesses. We know, and I want to send a message to all those businesses and those people that are feeling unsafe that their government is taking the actions necessary to make the situation better.
This is an issue that I know we joined ministers across this country to sit down with the federal government to talk about what we’re all experiencing in cities across this country, which is an increase in violence. In Ontario, they talked about gun violence. In Manitoba, it was bear spray. Here we talked about our issues. We called upon the federal government to make the changes necessary to the bail policy so we have better tools in our system for repeat violent offenders.
I’m pleased that we have a commitment, that they said they would make those changes this spring. We’ll be watching to make sure they happen. In the meantime, we’ll continue to invest in the programs and work with our communities to make the situation better.
LNG DEVELOPMENT
AND FRACKING
IMPACTS
A. Olsen: The Montney play in northeastern British Columbia is the largest potential greenhouse gas emission source in Canada and the sixth-largest in the world. While the government rhetoric promotes LNG as clean, we can’t escape reality. Exploiting these fossil fuels is contributing to catastrophic climate change.
By approving new LNG projects, the B.C. NDP is locking our province into a fossil fuel economy for decades. The impacts of these choices will be far-reaching, including the upstream emissions increased by fracking. Fracking emits large amounts of methane, which is 85 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Fracking is water-intensive, causes earthquakes, poisons groundwater and is linked to rare cancers and serious health problems.
My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. How many more fracked gas wells are needed to feed the climate monster created by this B.C. NDP’s LNG economy?
Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve explained previously in this House, as well as publicly, we released a little more than two weeks ago our new energy action framework.
The purpose of the framework is to create a context in which British Columbians can be assured that we will be on track to meet our legislated emission reduction targets as part of our CleanBC plan and to meet our oil and gas sectoral target by working with industry and Indigenous nations to put in place a regulatory cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector. There are a variety of means that will be used to meet that cap.
There are other factors in play with respect to the Montney, the recent agreement with the Blueberry River First Nation to limit disturbance, all of which is going to lead to concentrated work by industry, by government, by First Nations to ensure we are on track to meet our targets while we also focus on building a strong economy that will include clean energy opportunities in different places in British Columbia; that will benefit Indigenous nations; that will benefit our workers, including our building trades guests here today; and that will position British Columbia very, very well for the clean energy economy we are all transitioning to around the globe.
Mr. Speaker: Third Party House Leader, supplemental.
A. Olsen: The minister knows that the energy action framework doesn’t do anything for the increased threat of earthquakes, the increased poisoned groundwater, the increased poisonous and toxic tailings ponds, so that is really the future of the northeast in our province.
Remember last fall when the Premier said that new fossil fuel infrastructure is not compatible with meeting our climate targets? For decades, this B.C. NDP government has promised to be one thing, and then they’ve shown British Columbians they are another. On one hand, approving more LNG and more fracking, and on the other hand, creating a framework to reduce emissions that we just heard about from the minister.
There was no LNG industry in this province until this B.C. NDP government created and subsidized it, and the best way to deal with emissions, as we all know, is to not create them in the first place. A new poll shows that British Columbians overwhelmingly prefer government to focus on developing renewable energy over LNG. Instead, the B.C. NDP has chosen more methane emissions, more fracked gas wells, more polluted water, more poisonous tailings ponds, more pipelines, more RCMP raids.
My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. When will fracking end in this province?
Hon. G. Heyman: I think what the member opposite is trying to do is take his focus, a justifiable focus, on meeting our climate targets and reducing emissions and make it a completely binary choice, like there’s a light switch we can flick today and move to a new energy reality.
It is a transition. We are engaging in that transition. We are doing it through a number of mechanisms that included the announcements from a little over two weeks ago. The new energy action framework is a way to meet both our climate commitments and build a healthy clean energy economy that is growing around the world and that we want to be on the leading edge of.
Let me simply close by quoting the professor at the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, Andrew Weaver: “B.C. is leading the way with a new enhanced energy framework, a bold plan that will drive down emissions and build new opportunities in the clean economy sector. This framework will accelerate the province’s climate commitments while also supporting new opportunities in clean energy and technology, setting up the success of future generations, who will benefit off today’s investments in clean energy projects in B.C.”
BIVALENT COVID-19 VACCINATION
J. Rustad: To the Minister of Health, could the minister please explain the rationale for encouraging people in B.C. to get the third shot in the fight against COVID-19?
Hon. A. Dix: To save their health. To save their lives. To take care of their loved ones. To take care of one another. To help us deal with a global pandemic that has affected every one of our lives.
It is true that there are, at present, more than one million people who haven’t taken their bivalent shot. I encourage them. There are appointments available today, and I encourage them to do so.
I think, as we look around the world, we can express our gratitude to the doctors and nurses and naturopaths and dental hygienists who delivered our vaccine program in British Columbia. It saved, conservatively, hundreds of thousands of lives and allowed us to do things that were important, like our children going to school here. It allowed us to come together in the community to help one another in one of the most difficult periods in health care and in our community that we have ever seen, one that was unexpected and one that we responded to collectively, and I mean everybody, in an extraordinary way.
The reason we get vaccinated is to love one another and to express that love by taking actions to protect ourselves and to protect our loved ones. I’m very proud of the vaccine campaign.
I encourage everyone who hasn’t got their first shot to get their first shot, who hasn’t got their second shot to get their second shot, who hasn’t got their third shot to get their third shot, to get their bivalent vaccine today.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supplemental.
HEALTH WORKER VACCINATION
AND REHIRING OF
STAFF
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that response. I want to start with a quote from the federal Minister of Health, who stated on June 30 of the year 2022: “The immunity conferred by the primary series of vaccines administered in 2021 has now waned.”
It has now been almost two years since the original series of COVID vaccine shots were administered to health care workers in B.C. From my discussion with nurses, approximately 75 percent of the nurses in the North and 60 percent provincially have not received a third booster shot. According to the federal minister, this means those nurses are essentially the equivalent of unvaccinated health care workers.
B.C. is facing a health care crisis. Nurses are being burnt out, working far too many overtime shifts. Hospitals are providing minimal nursing coverage. Emergency rooms are continuously on diversion. Health care workers are extremely frustrated, and most importantly, patients are suffering.
When will this minister stop playing politics and hire back the health care workers that have left the system due to their choice to not receive the COVID-19 vaccine?
Hon. A. Dix: As always, in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, we rely on the science. On issues of vaccination, we rely on public health.
The order in question is a provincial health order. It’s one that I support, but it’s a provincial health order. So 99 percent-plus of B.C. health care workers got vaccinated. The reason they did is because they know and they care about their patients and their health, and they made that determination.
I have respect for everybody. I know decisions are difficult to make and have been difficult to make for people who did lose their positions. I respect everyone in the difficult choices they make.
But the ones I make, the ones Dr. Henry make, the ones that we’re making in British Columbia are to give priority to people who come to our acute care hospitals, dealing with cancer and heart disease and diabetes; the people who live in our long-term-care homes, where they’re their homes, who are unbelievably vulnerable today, yesterday and before to the COVID-19 pandemic — to give their health priority.
That’s why we have taken difficult steps together as a community to protect the health of everyone, and we are going to continue to do so.
MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES
AND REDEVELOPMENT
OF RIVERVIEW LANDS
K. Kirkpatrick: Every day we see the terrible consequence of people with severe mental health and addiction issues not receiving the help that they desperately need. The Riverview lands have long been recognized as a potential site for healing. In fact, the Premier himself admitted it in 2021, saying: “It has the potential to touch many more lives through delivery of more mental health services.”
Yet two years have now passed, and B.C. Housing has now, shockingly, confirmed that there are zero plans to realize that potential. In fact, without any public notice, work on Riverview abruptly stopped in January, and there isn’t even a timeline for resuming work. Riverview is stalled. B.C. Housing is a complete disaster.
Given the terrible costs of this failure, why has the Premier accomplished absolutely nothing in two years to address the mental health and addiction crisis by using the lands at Riverview?
Hon. R. Kahlon: There are so many things in that statement that are factually incorrect, I don’t know where to start. But I will say this. What is understood is that when the previous government shut down Riverview, there were not enough supports built in communities to support people that needed it. That is a fact.
We are, right now, in discussions with Kwikwetlem Nation. What’s vitally important in those negotiations is that we don’t go in there and say: “Here’s our plan. Come on to our plan.” What’s vitally important as part of those discussions is saying: “Let’s sit down at the table and build those plans together.”
The interview, perhaps, that the member was talking about…. I had made that clear to the member, to the reporter as well, that we are in conversations with the Kwikwetlem Nation. We are in conversations with them about what the future of that site can look like.
They are in an election right now. That’s why there’s a pause, because we wanted to let their election process happen. Once the election process is over, we will continue that conversation.
RELEASE OF B.C. HOUSING AUDIT REPORT
P. Milobar: What is clear is that B.C. Housing is in complete disarray, and they seem to go out of their way to have a lot of secrecy around their operations. In fact, we have a forensic audit that’s now been sitting for upwards of three weeks on the government books.
The Premier has the power to release the forensic audit immediately. As the Freedom of Information Act makes it very clear under section 25, he has that power.
Will the Premier commit to releasing that forensic audit of B.C. Housing today and make it available for scrutiny at Public Accounts?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The Premier earlier this week made it clear — I certainly have made it clear — that our intention is to have that report released with as little redaction as legally possible. I have read the report. I believe it’s in the public interest.
Right now we are following the process that needs to be followed, which is notifying any entities that may be named to give them the right to be able to see the contents where they’re named. Once that is done, once the process is complete, we will be releasing this report to the public so the public can see what the findings were.
M. de Jong: What we have and what the government seems to refuse to want to acknowledge is an absolute mess out there. We’ve got a growing state of lawlessness. We’ve got people who are terrified to go out on the streets in their own community. We’ve got businesses that are being forced to close because of the escalating rate of violent crime where they operate.
What we also know is that when it comes to releasing reports and information that accurately reflect the negative results of the Premier’s failed policies, he has a marked preference for finding times when he thinks the least number of people might be paying attention.
So let me ask this. The minister insists that the report is coming. Well, which holiday long weekend is he going to release it on? Are you going to hide it in the Easter bunny’s basket? Maybe he’ll drop it on the weekend everyone is heading off to the campground on Victoria Day, or maybe the government hopes that the noise from the Canada Day parades will drown out the criticism that undoubtedly exists within that forensic audit.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
M. de Jong: Or who knows? Maybe they’ll declare a new statutory holiday called Take Out the Garbage Day.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Shhh.
Please proceed.
M. de Jong: We actually wouldn’t have to ask the question if the minister and the Premier would do this: release the audit today unredacted so people can see the impact of these failed policies. When will they release the report?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll just say that the jokes from the member are not funny. And what else wasn’t funny was when he removed an entire chapter out of an ICBC report. We will take no lessons from that side about releasing reports. They have zero credibility on the topic.
What I have said, I’ll repeat again, which is that I’ve read the report, I believe it’s in the public interest, we are following the normal processes that are needed and we will be releasing it.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
D. Ashton: It gives me good pleasure today to bring a petition to the Legislature from four hard-working, incredible ladies in Penticton and area that are doing their best to inform people in our area.
“We, the undersigned citizens of B.C., ask the B.C. government to take immediate action to stop all logging in areas of risk, as defined by the forest strategic review, and protect trees, preserving biodiversity and resilience and supporting First Nations, critical to our planet’s survival and act on all 14 recommendations in the B.C. government panel’s A New Future for Old Forests.”
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Intimate Images Protection Act.
In committee room A, I call continued debate, in the Committee of Supply, for the Ministry of Forests.
In committee room C, I call continued debate, in the Committee of Supply, for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 12 — INTIMATE IMAGES
PROTECTION
ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:14 a.m.
The Chair: If I might, Members, let’s have some order in this chamber, please.
We’re just waiting for the arrival for staff for the Attorney General so that we can start this committee stage consideration of the Intimate Images Protection Act, Bill 12. We’re here for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 12.
Hon. N. Sharma: I would like to acknowledge the staff that are here with me today from the justice branch, Darin Thompson and Kaleigh Johnston.
On clause 1 (continued).
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, we were on clause 1, and after dealing with some preliminary matters, we were actually considering some of the terminology that is defined in clause 1 of the bill.
The term that I’d just like to take a moment to pose some questions to the Attorney on is that term “depict,” which becomes a defined term under what will ultimately become a new act. The definition is set out in subs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition.
I noted that in the report of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, they turned their mind to a possible fourth category that they term “wholly original content,” and we can explore briefly what that entails. The government has chosen not to include a reference to “wholly original content.” I’m wondering if the Attorney would like to indicate why that decision was made.
Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll just read out the section that answers your question here. The definition of “intimate images” would likely not apply to wholly original content, such as a drawing or a painting.
While still being harmful and humiliating, the harm that a person might suffer in the case of original art is of different character than photos and videos and does not involve the same breach of trust or have the same implications for sexual autonomy. In cases involving wholly original art, a person may have to consider relying on other causes of action, including invasion of privacy, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.
M. de Jong: So the Attorney and the government are satisfied, therefore, that a very lifelike drawing of an individual that is nude or nearly nude — an intimate drawing in a very lifelike fashion that, presumably, could constitute a similar invasion of privacy — does not warrant the same degree of protection as a photograph or a video.
Hon. N. Sharma: A few things to add from my previous comments.
The first one is…. I’m told the landing of that definition was based on a review of academic articles. So academics were giving guidance on the types of images that are causing the most harm and how to circle around those images with the act. We framed the act in the way that focused on those ones with the most harm and the most need for intervention, I guess I would say, when it came to an illegal action.
I would also say that what will happen with this definition, as the member knows, in terms of how the law develops, is…. I’m sure there will be many factual scenarios that come up when it comes to this definition of “depict.” The adjudicator would determine whether or not it fits within that category.
M. de Jong: Okay, that’s helpful. Two things, though, flow from that. The first….
If I didn’t acknowledge this, I should have, and I will. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada report, upon which I think much of the legislation or the vast majority of it is based, considered this matter and provided a rationale for a definition that they believe does not capture a sketching or a drawing. I make that acknowledgment.
What I just heard from the Attorney is…. I think what I just heard is that she believes this definition is broad enough to possibly capture a sketching or drawing. The type of drawing I’m thinking of is a very lifelike depiction of an identifiable individual that, for all other purpose, if it were a photo, would be captured by the provisions of this act.
The Attorney seems to have meant to convey earlier that she believes this definition is broad enough to capture a sketch, a drawing or an etching.
Hon. N. Sharma: I think what’s clear, with the evolving nature of technology and the different uses of technology and how quickly it’s evolving…. We know that the definition, as written, and, also, the jurisprudence will evolve to capture all that. So I’m really reluctant to make a comment on a factual scenario that might restrain judicial discretion when it comes to the interpretation of that definition.
What I will say is…. I think that once this is in place, we’ll have many scenarios or factual circumstances that come up. A person is free to come forward, with this process, to talk about the image that they feel is being spread without consent and seek a judicial determination on whether or not it falls under this broad definition.
M. de Jong: All, again, helpful. I will take minor issue with simply one part of what the Attorney said.
These debates, just in general terms, as I know the minister knows, are kind of intended to convey an intent of parliament. So when I ask the Attorney whether she believes the definition is broad enough to include a drawing or a sketching, I think it’s a relevant question. To say: “I don’t want to influence judicial consideration….” Actually, that’s why we’re here. We are here to convey and ensure that the will of parliament, as expressed in this legislation, is as clear as it can possibly be.
Hon. N. Sharma: We’ve been engaging in a very interesting and complicated discussion about technology, technology’s interface and its evolving nature with how it can change images — alter images and change that level, basically, between original art and an altered image.
What I will say clearly is that the intention of this definition is not to include original art. Original art is not included. There are other remedies, as I mentioned before, if somebody feels like they’ve been violated in that way. We’re not condoning that type of behaviour.
Where it gets more complicated, and where, I think, judicial intervention may be needed, is that original art can be altered in many different ways and depicted in different ways to capture somebody in a way that would be brought into this legislation. This is where we’re thinking that this will evolve with technology. We leave it open for that to evolve because, I think, given the nature of how quickly things can spread and change and be altered, you really need that judicial determination on that particular image to see if it has been captured in that way.
I hope that brings clarity.
M. de Jong: Again, it is helpful. There are subsequent provisions that deal with the phenomenon of an image that has been altered, and we can explore that, perhaps, a little further down the line.
Look, I’m not advancing the proposition that there is a rogue army of artists out there who are on the verge of trying to cause harm by creating pictures and drawings that are in violation of people’s privacy.
I’m not going to ask the Attorney General this question, but my expectation is that of the complaints that she referred to and the charges that she referred to last day — virtually none of them or probably none of them — related to drawings and artistic impressions as opposed to photographs or videos. If that’s not the case, the Attorney can advise the committee. But we can certainly move on to other areas.
The next term under the Ds is the term “distribute,” which occupies a place of prominence in the legal construct that is being created here. I’ll start by asking the minister to confirm whether or not an applicant or a claimant, in availing themselves of the remedies that the act provides, is required to demonstrate an intention to distribute on the part of a respondent in the case of clause 6.
Hon. N. Sharma: No, there’s no level of intent required. The elements of making out the statutory offence are that it’s non-consensual and there’s been distribution.
M. de Jong: All right. Let’s just take a moment, then, to ponder that. On its face, the verb “to distribute” requires an intent. I can’t imagine how one would distribute something without having the intent to do so. Is it the presence of the phrase “otherwise make available” in the definition that eliminates the need to establish intent?
I think my question is one of mechanics. On its face, the term “distribute” would seem to require an intent to do something. Is it the inclusion of the phrase “otherwise make available” that eliminates that otherwise standard requirement of intent?
Hon. N. Sharma: Like many of the provisions in this act, it’s really victim-driven. It focuses on outcomes for the victim, so the idea that “distribute….” Unfortunately, with technology, it can be done without intent.
For example, if you upload an image and it’s easy for other people to depict it or distribute it in other ways, you may not have intended that distribution. Right? But because you did the uploading, the distribution happened. And there are other examples where, maybe, there’s no intent but it’s being distributed that are interplayed between a lot of the non-consensual disclosure of these images.
It’s meant to be as broad as possible. For example, if you have an image of somebody that you have…. It’s an intimate image without consent, so it meets that definition. You’ve hung it on a wall — right? — so it’s available for distribution.
The reason that the definition is very broad is because we want to capture all scenarios where there’s harm to the victim, and distribution can show up in many different ways, like in the example that I gave you.
M. de Jong: On the basis of that helpful explanation, in the Attorney’s mind, or perhaps even more importantly in the context of the way the bill is drafted, is that lack of requirement for intent present to an equal degree with respect to applications made under clause 5 and clause 6?
Here’s my rationale. To the minister’s point, the plight of the victim as it relates to the injunctive relief in clause 5, there would seem to be a very rational argument that one is indifferent to the question of intent. It’s just “This is happening, and it must stop,” versus the relief that is available in clause 6, which relates to damages.
It strikes me that the question of intent might be, in many cases would be, relevant with respect to an assessment of damages, whether they’re pecuniary damages or otherwise.
Hon. N. Sharma: We’re getting into some of the sections that come later on that actually explain the different types of orders that have different paths when it comes to damages.
For section 10, the real focus of that one…. That one is about just getting the order to take down the image. It’s very fast, and it’s meant to be circled around that. But then, when we come to any claim for damages, the court would consider a wider range of factors, which are set out in the legislation.
The real driving force is consent. If you are an accused in this scenario, what you could raise as a defence is: “I had the consent for the distribution up to this point, or up to that….” That’s the way that this legislation is framed. It’s more about that.
M. de Jong: We will come to some of those distinctions, the difference between the clause 5 versus clause 6 process.
One thing maybe we should probably be careful about in the case of this — I say this with genuine respect — is we should probably avoid using terms like “the accused” in these proceedings. There are obviously respondents, and I certainly know what the Attorney was referring to. But we had, I thought, a very good conversation last day about establishing that the separate Criminal Code process remains in effect where there is an accused, versus what we are dealing with here, which is a respondent.
The next term that is important in the context of the legislation and how relief is sought and plays a role in securing the relief is an Internet intermediary. It’s one of those things that on the surface, I guess we can imagine….
I’ll read the definition into the record. It means “an organization that hosts or indexes third party content through an online platform.” I’ll simply ask the Attorney to kick this off, to advise the committee of two or three obvious examples of who the ministry and she believe qualify as Internet intermediaries.
Hon. N. Sharma: This is another example that will be ever evolving. We want this definition to be broad enough to keep up with the different platforms and how the Internet evolves. But I can give you examples of sites where this would be captured, like Facebook or Twitter or Reddit or other platforms that young people might use.
M. de Jong: The common feature…. What I think the definition is seeking to focus in on are Internet organizations that allow interaction between third parties, and access and participation, whether by subsequent posting or commentary, by third parties. Is that a fair assumption on my part?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.
M. de Jong: The question that I think I put to the staff in the briefing we had is if that’s the general proposition, we immediately think of those large platforms, the ones that the minister mentioned. But would it also include a smaller website with a chat room where there is an opportunity for third parties to interact?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, it’s broad to just have any organization that hosts or indexes third-party content. Yes, it would be a platform like the member suggested.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 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.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Routledge in the chair.
The committee met at 11:17 a.m.
The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.
On Vote 30: ministry operations, $483,568,000 (continued).
M. Bernier: Again, welcome to the minister and all the staff. We don’t have a lot of time this morning, but we’ll get into it again this afternoon.
I was saying, before we got on camera, just letting the minister know…. We’ll definitely get into, this afternoon, some issues around old growth, the BCTS and probably talk about some stumpage and some revenue issues that are in the ministry.
I do want to start with a couple of very specific issues, to put on the record. I want to thank the minister in advance for, hopefully, dealing with an issue. I know — and I say this with respect — that he’s new to the file, but he will be aware of this.
I’ve had the privilege of meeting with the Interior Logging Association. I want to do this here, because I think it’s really important that staff hear this. I know some of them are aware.
They are definitely concerned right now about a very specific issue for their members, and that’s the ILPP, the pension plan, for the Interior loggers. There are some huge issues. I know it’s a cross-issue between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Forests collectively. I know that the previous Minister of Forests was aware of this. She is conveniently now the Minister of Finance.
I’m putting this out here. I’m hoping staff of the minister will help with this and get a hold of Todd Chamberlain, the general manager for the Interior Logging Association, to help with this issue.
Just very, very quickly…. I won’t get into it. It’s actually way beyond my knowledge.
There are struggles right now, especially for the small players, who have been contributing into a pension plan — the pension fund, the ILPP — for multiple decades now. This started back in the ’80s, if I remember, when I was researching it. We’re now at the point, though, where the pension plan is underfunded. There’s pressure being put on.
I don’t know, and I’m not putting blame on why this happened. We have something, in the situation here…. We have a lot of small, mom-and-pop operations that are on the verge of bankruptcy if they get pressured into what they’re expected to do to bring up the pension plan and to ensure that it’s a solid plan.
Anyway, I won’t get into the full details, other than to say that I’ve read through this. This is something that the ministry and the Ministry of Finance definitely, I hope, will take seriously and get a hold of them, because there are a lot of jobs at stake.
I’ll just quickly share…. I talked with one individual, 85 years old, who is now receiving a letter saying…. Because he previously owned a company 20 years ago, he is being asked to pay upwards of $1 million into the plan. You can appreciate that is not something that can take place.
I’m just looking for, maybe, a quick answer from the minister that he and his ministry will follow up on this.
Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member having advised me earlier that he’d had these conversations.
The regulatory locus of this issue is with the Ministry of Finance. They administer the pension standards legislation. The Ministry of Forests is well aware of this issue and is dealing with it and working with the Ministry of Finance. I think the member would be well advised to take this issue up with the Minister of Finance in her estimates, which I understand have not yet taken place.
Just to reassure the member, we are well aware of it, and steps are being taken. I appreciate the seriousness of the issue and its importance to the ILA and its members, both past and present.
M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer from the minister again. I do realize it’s the Ministry of Finance that manages a lot of this. Obviously, I’m looking for advocacy from the minister. It sounds, through his answer, that his staff are aware of this. We will flag it, as we have, for the Minister of Finance, who we know is aware of this as well.
It does sound like…. Time is of the essence on this specific issue, which is why I thought I would raise it here today on the record. I’m just asking for all hands on deck to consider this.
One other issue that I’m looking for some response from the minister on…. About three or four years ago, we raised, in this chamber, during the Premier’s estimates, the lack of availability for MLAs to consult with, talk with and, frankly, even have coffee with Ministry of Forests staff.
I will tell the minister, as a personal example…. I have a district office in Dawson Creek for the Peace region. I used to have a great relationship with that office and with the staff. This is not an attack on the actual staff that do the work in our field offices. This is more, I believe, the direction that they’ve been given.
Now, three or four years ago, the Premier stood in a large House here and said: “Absolutely. Any MLA can talk to staff in district offices. We’ve never given direction that they can’t.”
That was three or four years ago. We are continuing to hear stories from MLAs, especially right now, with the crisis in the forestry sector, who are just trying to get information on behalf of constituents and logging companies or large primaries and to reach out to local district offices.
They are advising us that they can’t talk to us. They’ve been advised they cannot answer the door or return phone calls. We have to have permission, and everything must go through the minister’s office. We were told by the Premier three or four years ago that was not the case, and that would change.
Can the minister give me an answer on why three, four years later that direction has not been given to staff? Can we at least have a relationship like we used to?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much. I’m told the normal procedure, and it’s unchanged over the years, is that MLAs are entitled to talk with staff. All that’s requested is that requests go in through the minister’s office, my office, just so that, as the minister, we’re aware of what the request is. Those requests can be answered quickly and the meeting set up.
The only caveat, I would say, is that during fire season it’s important that there be some respect for the autonomy of the operation during an emergency. In the past, and I’m not suggesting that this particular member did that, there have been occasions when MLAs have entered into the emergency centre, the fire centre. It’s just awkward, and it’s not advisable. That would be the caveat that I would put on that.
M. Bernier: Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I just want the minister to recognize…. First of all, maybe I’ll go to the latter part of his commentary.
I agree. Obviously in a crisis situation…. Yes, all hands are on deck where they can be. Also understanding the roles that each organization, each department and office plays, trying to manage that during a crisis situation and the respect that’s needed to do that….
I think we all agree that it would be inappropriate. Sometimes people are looking for answers for constituents and trying to help. I understand the minister’s point on time and place in that situation.
I will say, on his first parts of his commentary, that that didn’t always used to be the case, that we’d have to have the permission of the minister. I’ll give an example of where…. It’s not quite red tape. It’s the delay that comes into place. I appreciate his offer that they would try to have a quick turnaround in the ministry office. That doesn’t actually happen presently. I’m not sure what the minister’s example of a quick turnaround would be, but I’ll give him one where I had, I thought, a very simple request from a constituent that was waiting on a permit.
They contacted the local office because they had been waiting for almost a year for an answer. So I contacted the local office to say: “Can you give me an update on where we are on a timeline, so I can help this constituent along?” They said: “I can’t tell you. Talk to the minister’s office.” It was about 2½ months later that I got a response back from the minister’s office saying: “Thank you very much. We’ll look into this.” It never said that I could look into it or that there…. And then it was about six months later that same constituent came back to my office saying he still hadn’t heard anything.
Those are the things I’m talking about. In fact, in a lot of these situations…. Again, I’m not putting blame on the local district office. I wonder how that’s playing out.
In a situation where we have a lot of these micro kind of issues, I think we could actually help in that relationship-building. It’s not that we’re trying to have influence on some of this permitting. Because I understand, and I believe we all understand, the role that the different offices have looking into the different aspects before a permit is issued.
But sometimes that relationship of just having somebody in the local office contact a constituent can go a long way, I think for all of us — including the minister’s office by taking something off his desk. I’m only flagging that. I don’t need a response from the minister other than to say that if he thinks a quick turnaround is needed, I do too. I just believe that there’s an opportunity here where we can streamline the situation and streamline the offices as well.
That’s more of a monologue commentary. I’m not trying to be unintentionally provocative again, like I was last night, as the minister said, but….
Interjection.
M. Bernier: Now it’s intentional. That’s right.
In the last few minutes I have before we move into the other House, I just want to change directions now. We talked in the minister’s estimates binder yesterday and some of the direction that… Sorry, not estimates binder. I’m drawing a blank on the name now. My apologies. On the direction he was given by the Premier yesterday, we canvassed that quite a bit.
I want to talk now a bit about just the economic state of the forestry sector in the province of British Columbia. It’s my understanding that as of last fall, 43 mills in 28 communities are either active or planned curtailments around the province. Has that changed at all? Can the minister give me an update through his staff now that we’re in the spring of 2023?
I know there have been other permanent closures that have been announced. As of last fall, there were 43. Again, 28 communities. We’re talking about communities right around the province. This is not one part of the province. So again, just a quick update: how many mills have closed in the last year? We’ll start with that. How many have announced curtailments?
Hon. B. Ralston: I just wanted to comment on what the member described as a monologue, on the contact with the minister’s office. I agree with him, and I don’t think that that took place since I’ve taken over as minister. The timeline that he set out for a response on a question from an MLA — I agree with him. It is too long. Certainly, my direction has been that responses have to be quicker.
One of the highest priorities is responses from MLAs, whether they’re opposition MLAs or government MLAs. That has to be a higher priority. That kind of timeline — I agree with him — is too long. I’ll do what I can to make sure that’s the case. The deputy, certainly, is aware of that, and the direction has gone out.
As the member knows, the forest industry is cyclical. Permanent closures do take place. In the 16 years that the member’s party was on this side of the House as government, there were many closures. Dozens of mills were closed, and 30,000 jobs were lost. So it’s not unique to this particular juncture in history. I think the member is well aware of that.
Let me just say that from March 2021 to March 2023, I’m told, there have been eight permanent operating changes announced, four full facility closures, one partial mill closure and three shift reductions. There have been nine indefinite closures, of which seven were full facility closures, one was a shift reduction, and one was a mill closure.
In total, there have been 17 permanent and indefinite curtailments from 2021 to March 2023, just last week: nine lumber mills, three pellet mills, three pulp mills, one pulp and paper mill, and one plywood mill. More than 1,900 workers have been impacted by the permanent and indefinite closures in B.C. from 2021 to March 2023.
The reason given for the majority of the curtailments and closures in late 2022 and 2023 have cited fibre supply issues and low lumber prices. As we discussed yesterday, the member will recall that prices on softwood lumber exports into the United States were at record highs in 2021 and 2022, but the prices descended very, very rapidly towards the end of last year. Into this year, it continues, and those low lumber prices have a huge impact on the profitability of certain operations. CEOs and boards of directors make the necessary adjustments, regrettable as that is.
I would not want to minimize or dismiss the concern that communities have about the impact of layoffs and permanent closures within their communities. The member cited Chetwynd yesterday in the Legislature and the impact of the closure of the mill and the pellet plant there. For a small community, the impact has a huge ripple effect, as he rightly pointed out, and we’re well aware of that. The Ministry of Jobs and the transition teams are there, assisting with the transition in any way that can be helpful to workers or families and to the community.
I think that this is something that we’re acutely aware of — I’m acutely aware of it — and doing everything we can to mitigate, working with the industry to build a long-term, profitable, prosperous forest sector in the province. I regard it as a fundamental industry here in the province, and I think the future, notwithstanding some of the current predicament that we face collectively, is, in the long run, a bright one.
M. Bernier: We’re going to get into this probably a little bit deeper after lunch, for sure. I appreciate the minister acknowledging the pressures on communities, obviously. We’ll talk about some of that because we want to ensure that the supports are there when these closures, unfortunately, have been taking place around the province.
I also am completely aware, as I believe most of us are, of the cyclical aspects in the resource sector when it comes to the products — whether it’s in the mining sector and all the different components or in forestry, pulp and paper, dimensional lumber. Obviously, we are subject to a market that fluctuates.
That has always happened. This is not new. That fluctuation is taking place, and companies make investment decisions, short- or long-term, based on their knowledge base of understanding those market trends that will happen provincially, nationally and globally, depending on the product.
Before we break here…. Knowing that this has been going on for decades, that companies know the market trends and make those decisions — the minister just announced to the House, which we all know, a lot of the closures that have taken place over the last couple of years — can the minister tell me why he and his government and the Premier of the day said that zero would be closed and that nobody would lose their jobs?
In 2017, he was very bold on his announcement of the importance of the forestry sector. That’s one of the only positive things that I’ve heard from this government in the last five years on support for the forestry sector, even though the minister himself is saying how important it is.
Why did the Premier so boldly say that no jobs will be lost, that no mills will be closed? Now the minister is saying that this is normal and that this is cyclical.
The Chair: Minister, I think what we’ll do is we’ll break for lunch, and then you can answer the question after lunch.
Hon. B. Ralston: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); F. Donnelly in the chair.
The committee met at 11:21 a.m.
The Chair: All right, good morning. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
On Vote 24: ministry operations, $199,682,000 (continued).
Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to begin by a delayed answer to the question put to me yesterday respecting Jimsmith Park day-use bank degradation. The answer is an engineering firm was engaged in the 2022-23 fiscal to assess the current day-use-area grades and degradation challenges. A full layout and plan has been developed for the site. The project is currently on B.C. Bid for tender with a construction plan for this upcoming spring. We confirm that the beach site will be completely overhauled with a goal to provide a more accessible, safe and usable space for park visitors.
T. Shypitka: So a completion date is…?
Hon. G. Heyman: We don’t have an exact date because it’s still up on B.C. Bid, but our expectation is to begin construction this spring and complete construction within this season.
R. Merrifield: I know we started off yesterday, and I missed your amazing opening remarks. I do want you to know that they were my bedtime reading last night, as I scrolled through and got to read them. I do appreciate the welcome that you extended, too, and the introduction to your staff. I do want to also echo that today and just say thank you to all of you for all the preparation that you do and all the work that you do in prioritizing our environment in our province.
As the shadow minister for Environment and Climate Change Strategy, I am here to discuss this critical role and to challenge the minister. So today I’m not going easy, like I did last year, on the minister. I’m going to be much more aggressive on asking questions but, really, to refine the plan and to move us all forward together.
Our beautiful province of B.C. is so blessed with an abundance of natural resources and a diverse ecosystem. From the towering peaks of the Rocky Mountains to the lush rainforests of the Pacific coast, our province’s natural beauty is simply unrivaled. However, this very beauty and the well-being of our communities are truly under threat from the devastating impacts of climate change.
As we examine the financial statements of the Budget 2023, it’s essential that we prioritize our environment and climate change mitigation, not only for the sake of our province’s economy and natural resources but for the long-term survival and prosperity of our communities, our children and our future generations.
While there have been efforts in recent years to tackle the challenges posed by climate change, the metrics and outcomes, unfortunately, do not reflect the progress that we urgently need. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. We will talk about the slight dip of 2022, but we also continue to see extreme weather events. Those have become more and more frequent and more intense, and our ecosystems and biodiversity are being pushed literally to the brink.
It’s clear that the current approach just isn’t sufficient, and we need to take bolder, more innovative steps to address this existential crisis. It’s time for us to engage in a comprehensive planning process that encompasses every aspect of our society and economy, from transportation and energy production to land use and agriculture.
I’m excited to see some of the aspects of Budget 2023. In some of my questioning, I’m hoping to get to some of those big plans and big, bold ideas that are necessary to continue to prioritize investments in green infrastructure, renewable energy sources and fuels, and sustainable technologies that will help us transition towards a low-carbon economy. We have to support our industries in developing and adopting clean technologies, and we must invest in climate-resilient infrastructure to protect our communities from the impacts of climate change.
Moreover, the planning process needs to be inclusive and consultative. One of the things that I remarked on as I reviewed our estimates from last year was the minister’s attention to our Indigenous communities and the consultative processes that have gone on with them. But it has to be fully inclusive, with all of our Indigenous communities, our local governments, the private sector and civil society to help develop comprehensive solutions.
I’m also going to be asking questions to ensure that the transition towards a low-carbon economy is just and equitable, providing support to all of our communities that are dependent on carbon-intensive industries. At the same time, we must enhance our efforts to monitor and track our progress on climate change mitigation. That includes robust data collection, transparency and accountability to ensure that our efforts are effective and that we are on track to meet our ambitious climate targets.
In my role as the minister’s critic, I urge all of us on both sides to recognize the urgency of this issue and make the necessary commitments to protect our environment, our economy and our communities from the devastating impacts of climate change. This is our opportunity to drill down — did you get it? Pun intended — and really take a look at what Budget 2023 means for our economy and our environment as we move forward.
That concludes my opening remarks.
I can just move into my first question. Are you ready? Awesome.
We’re going to just start with talk about 2020 emissions. It was the first time in a long time that we’ve actually seen a reduction in our emissions as a province, but I have to say it was a disappointing reduction. Canada’s total GHG emissions decreased by 8.9 percent. Compared to B.C…. We were only able to decrease by 4 percent during the same time period, barely half, not even half of Canada’s reduction.
My first question to the minister is why.
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, welcome to the critic, the member from Okanagan, Mission. I appreciate the member’s focus on the seriousness of the climate change crisis that the globe faces and that we in B.C., of course, face and have felt some significant impacts from already.
Certainly, we know we will continue to feel more, so it’s incumbent on all of us…. This is an area where I hope all members of the House will find ways to work together — while we may differ on certain mechanisms, that we’ll find ways to work together to retain our commitment to significant emission reductions in line with our legislated targets.
To that end, I would point out that many of the measures that we have introduced through our CleanBC Roadmap to 2030, which was the completion of the CleanBC plan, are in the process of being implemented. Some regulatory measures are being developed. Other programs are in place, are picking up steam but haven’t yielded full results and certainly hadn’t by 2020.
But we take the crisis seriously. We know that we all need to intensify our efforts, all governments across Canada, and the B.C. government is no exception. We will continue to look for ways to do that by constantly examining the success of the measures we have in place, tweaking them where we can to make it more effective.
To that end, we consult regularly, including with our multisectoral Climate Solutions Council, which is broadly representative of academia, of environmental organizations, of industry — significant representation — as well as local government, First Nations and labour as well as youth. So we use a number of mechanisms to check on the effectiveness of what we’re doing.
With respect to the 2020 emissions specifically, I would say that two of the reasons — and the only ones that leap out — why the B.C. reduction was not as great as Canada as a whole was because we rebounded more quickly than other jurisdictions in Canada, including not being on as much of a roller-coaster in terms of shut down, open up, shut down, open up.
We had a more steady approach to the economy. It’s one that I think British Columbians appreciated. I think it was one that was led by my colleague the Minister of Health, along with the provincial health officer and then Premier Horgan, to take a steady approach and deal with a devastating impact on our population and economy in a way that was thoughtful, effective and didn’t cause the same level of disruption to the economy that happened in other parts of the country.
Unfortunately, one of the by-products of that is we didn’t see emissions drop as much as other parts of the country. But I think on that, as well, we want to see a steady trajectory.
The other reason is that we had in-migration and immigration of approximately 50,000 new citizens in British Columbia. We will continue to see the population of British Columbia grow. It is a very desirable place to live. It’s a place with a healthy, strong economy that we’ve taken great pains to develop and promote and nurture, and we will continue to do that.
Of course, we don’t offer that as…. Well, we can’t meet our targets because we’re getting more people. It makes it more challenging. It means that we need to be aware of it and that we need to ensure that we are really effective with our programming to reduce emissions so we can absorb a greater population. Even though our emissions per capita may be lower, we know….
Our legislation calls for absolute emission reduction, and that’s what we’re focused on.
R. Merrifield: The minister talked about the measures that have been deployed that have not quite had their effect or come to fruition yet. In reviewing the last few years of estimates, that same reasoning has been given.
My question to the minister is: at what point will we see or have some assurance that the measures that are being employed through the CleanBC plan are actually having any effect whatsoever?
Hon. G. Heyman: My associate deputy minister is just itching to offer the greatest hits list, but I don’t want to reveal everything all at once.
First of all, areas where we’ve had tremendous success, I think, are…. We have blown through our targets for the takeup of new car sales, zero emission. We are doing very well. We’re the envy of North America. California was inspired by us surpassing them, on a per-capita basis, and quickly upped their game. We’re kind of neck and neck to the race for takeup now.
We also know that there are other areas where we need to ensure that we meet our targets and do better. That includes the adoption of energy switching for home and building heating, the adoption of heating and cooling, the adoption of heat pumps, the retrofitting for energy efficiency, medium- and heavy-duty transportation. Those are all areas that we’re focusing our efforts on.
Another area in which we have really exceeded our target…. We’re on track to do much better than our target of a 45 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2025. Of course, we have a target of 90 percent from the oil and gas sector by 2030 and near elimination in all industry by 2035.
R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Thank you for not going through the full hit list. That’s excellent.
I’m not actually looking for the hit list. I’m pretty aware of what the programs are and what’s being offered. I’m actually asking: what are the results?
I’m just going to take one, for an example, in terms of asking the question. The new car program that you mentioned…. How much has that actually reduced the emissions in B.C.?
Hon. G. Heyman: We do know that we are at almost 20 percent new car sales and light-duty vehicles, and our 2025 target was 10. So it’s 2023. We’ve almost doubled it.
It’s difficult to attribute emission reductions in a sector to any one single initiative. For instance, we’ve also been working on expanding and supporting public transit, which has faced a lot of difficulty during the pandemic. People were worried about the safety of public transit, so ridership went down. We’ve taken a number of measures to support public transit and ensure that we keep ridership up. We are, of course, hopeful that it will soon reach previous levels and exceed them.
I cannot give an exact figure for emissions that have been reduced as a result of the light-duty-vehicle incentive program, although I am relatively sure that we could get the figures, probably not today, on the number of light-duty, zero-emission vehicles that have been bought in B.C. since our programs came into place, as well as vehicles that have been removed through the SCRAP-IT program and what that looks like in terms of a reasonable average of greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle.
That could probably be accomplished through a technical briefing from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation as well as climate action secretariat staff. As the member knows, the program is delivered through Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
Noting the hour, I’ll ask the minister to move the motion.
Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Chair: The committee now stands adjourned.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.