Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 17, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 338
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
B.C. Arts Council, annual report, 2022-23 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2023
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: Hon. D. Coulter.
Introductions by Members
Hon. M. Rankin: I think everyone in this House knows how much we rely on our administrative staff to keep ourselves and the business of this House running smoothly, sometimes. They help ensure we have the right set of notes for debates, they help us get to votes on time, and more recently, they help us Zoom into the right virtual room.
For 35 years, Connie Roberts has done this extraordinarily well. Through changes in party, through changes in technology, she’s done the job with grace, conscientiousness and poise.
Right out of high school, Connie was hired in what was then the Ministry of Deregulation, in 1979, and then the following year moved over to the Legislature. She knows everybody. For example, my predecessor in Oak Bay–Gordon Head is Brian Smith. He served between 1979 and 1989, not that long ago. He comes in from time to time, and of course, Connie and he carry on like a house on fire, like old friends.
In 1991, Connie left government to raise two wonderful children: Victoria Roberts, who lives in Kelowna, and David Roberts, who lives in Grand Prairie, Alberta. In total, she’s worked, if you can believe it, for 15 ministers in 11 portfolios. Today I count myself incredibly fortunate to have Connie as my administrative coordinator. She exemplifies what’s best in public service.
Connie, I look forward to applauding you this evening in a Long Service Awards ceremony at Government House.
Would everyone please join me in giving Connie a round of applause in this House as well.
C. Oakes: This week we celebrate Small Business Week across British Columbia, and I’m very pleased today that joining us in the gallery is the president of the Quesnel and District Chamber of Commerce, a very strong advocacy group for businesses in our region, Rick Wittner.
The president of the Quenel and District Chamber of Commerce is also the president of the Cariboo Mining Association. Mining is a critically important industry in our region. He’s here to meet with government to discuss this important industry.
He’s joined by another member in the association, Jackie Sarginson.
Would the House please welcome these members to the House.
Hon. S. Robinson: Attending QP today is a number of students from the Alliance of B.C. Students. They are here on the legislative grounds, meeting with various ministers and MLAs to talk about the issues that matter most to them. They’ll be here today and tomorrow.
I want to invite the House to please give them all so very warm welcome.
Hon. L. Popham: Somebody who we are very familiar with, Jason Goertzen, is here in the chamber. He often looks over us. He is the spiritual care provider for Leading Influence. He has brought in today a constituent of mine, Lydia Haight.
Lydia is retiring from Pacific Christian School after 20 years of clerical work. Her first order of business in retirement, I am told, is “Takin’ It to the Streets” at the Doobie Brothers concert in Abbotsford on October 28, with her husband, Paul.
Huge congratulations for an exciting retirement.
B. Banman: I think every single MLA in this House would agree that we would be nothing if it were not for our dedicated staff of CAs back in our office. They handle probably the most difficult phone conversations and the most difficult case work. They are the ones that actually do the bulk of the heavy lifting on our behalf and on behalf of our constituents and British Columbians.
It is my pleasure to introduce two of my staff that are up in the gallery: Amber Lee Born and Teresa Mesic. Amber is joined by her partner, Chris.
Would this House please give them a very warm welcome and applause for all the hard work that they do every day.
T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, on behalf of the official opposition, to welcome to the Legislature, for the next couple of days and here in the chamber today, constituency assistants from all over British Columbia. We won’t name them one by one. We have constituency assistants here from Kelowna, Vancouver, Prince George, White Rock, Williams Lake — all over this great province of ours.
As everyone in this House knows, regardless of the member, it’s the constituency assistants…. It’s the staff and the team back home that do the real heavy lifting on behalf of all members. They run our community offices. They manage tough files. Most importantly, they’re the ones, on the front lines, that provide exceptional service to people in need.
On behalf of all of the members of the opposition, I want to say thank you to each and every one of you for the incredible work that you do as the face and the voice of the MLAs you represent. We want to welcome you here for a couple of days of engagement and collaboration.
I would ask the House to please make all of these incredible men and women, these constituency assistants for the official opposition, very, very welcome here in British Columbia’s Legislature today.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to welcome to the chamber today three new and relatively new members of my ministry office staff.
Elyssa Dunlop is my admin assistant and joined us last spring. She is the person who gets to field numerous phone calls, many of them not particularly pleased with my actions, and manage expectations and give people good answers.
Shibby Claire joined us this summer as the new admin coordinator and has been working tirelessly to keep the many parts of the schedule that are fluid running smoothly.
Mary Ward joined us just this week as my new executive assistant and experienced her first scrum yesterday, having my back.
Will the House make them all very, very welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR
THE ERADICATION OF
POVERTY
D. Davies: Today I rise in the House on International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.
The observance of this day can be tracked back to October 17, 1987, when over 100,000 people gathered in Paris at the very site where the UN declaration of human rights was signed to honour the victims of extreme poverty, violence and hunger. On that day, they proclaimed that poverty is a violation of human rights and that action must be taken to eradicate poverty worldwide.
This year’s theme is “Putting dignity in practice,” calling on universal access for decent work and social protection. Decent work must empower people and provide fair wages as well as safe working conditions.
Today we reflect on the progress that has been made to reduce poverty here in British Columbia. We cannot turn a blind eye to the harsh reality that still persists today, especially with our affordability crisis. British Columbia has the highest seniors’ poverty rate in the country and the second-highest overall poverty rate in the country.
Today one in five children in British Columbia grow up in poverty. We have a lot of work to do in British Columbia to give British Columbians a better future. We must build a prosperous economy that creates good-paying jobs across the province, and we have to invest in our social services to help support individuals and families in need.
I’d like to acknowledge and thank the many, many charities that are across all of our communities in the province, the non-profits and all the people that work so hard to lift up our communities. We must continue to support these organizations and stand together to eradicate poverty here in British Columbia as well as around the globe.
SMALL BUSINESSES IN
GREATER VERNON
AREA
H. Sandhu: Today I rise with immense pride and excitement as we celebrate Small Business Week from October 15 to October 21. It is a time to honour the backbone of our economy.
The driving force behind our communities’ resilience and growth is small businesses. I have the honour to know many great small business owners and to visit many businesses regularly, whether it is personally delivering COVID-19 relief or circuit breaker grants or, recently, small business rebate program information, to go there to hear their concerns as well as, as a customer, to support local small businesses along with my family.
I had the incredible honour and privilege to showcase some of our beloved businesses to our Premier during his recent visit to Vernon last month. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Kaleco Clothing, the Wedge Cheesery, Good Gracious and The Practical Kitchen, Oopsie Daisy, The Towne Theatre and Ratio Coffee and Pastry for graciously hosting us.
I recently joined in celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Rusty Spur, a cherished family-owned and operated business, a tack and supply store in Lumby.
Stuart and Andrea, your commitment to excellent customer service and extensive knowledge in serving our agriculture sector are commendable. Your generosity in supporting charities and non-profits is truly heartwarming. Your contribution not only strengthens our community fabric, but it also inspires others to give back.
Later this month the greater Vernon chamber will be hosting and honouring entrepreneurs and the business community with the Business Excellence Awards on October 26.
I urge everyone to join me celebrating our small businesses, not just this week but also throughout the week. Visit your local stores, dine in your neighbourhood restaurants, and support the entrepreneurs who pour their hearts and souls into making our communities vibrant and thriving.
B.C. AVIATION MUSEUM
T. Wat: I’m pleased to rise to speak about one of B.C.’s best-kept secrets, the B.C. Aviation Museum, which has been around for over 30 years.
Earlier this summer, in August, I met with the fantastic team of staff and volunteers at the B.C. Aviation Museum, who work hard to preserve the 37 aircraft, dozens of displays and over 13,000 artifacts. I would like to thank Steve Nicol, president of the museum, for taking two hours of his day to tour the museum and detail its rich history.
Started by dedicated volunteers in the late 1980s, the museum is now under professional management as they plan a major upgrade to their displays, education program and visitor experience. From the first Canadian-designed aircraft to fly in Canada out of Victoria in 1910 to a Cold War supersonic F-104 Starfighter, the museum displays over 100 years of aviation history in British Columbia, which I was truly grateful to experience with Mr. Nicol during my visit.
Unfortunately, today the museum is running out of space and needs help. It is planning a new wildfire-themed hangar to house its two fire bombers and, hopefully, its iconic mighty Martin Mars water bombers, along with many other displays. This is a huge undertaking, technically, operationally and financially.
Until now, the museum depended solely on ticket sales, donations and the generosity of the Victoria International Airport. Support for the museum would be greatly appreciated and will help give Victoria another world-class tourist attraction.
Members, I encourage you all to take some time to stop by the B.C. Aviation Museum and celebrate the impact it has had on all of us. I certainly had a blast, and I’m sure you will too.
TOUR DE ROCK FUNDRAISER
FOR CHILDHOOD
CANCER
R. Parmar: I think it’s all fair to say that cancer impacts every family in British Columbia. It impacts all of our lives as legislators as well. I’m so thankful to everyone each year who participate in different fundraising events, whether it was our Minister of Post-Secondary Education or members of the opposition who participate in Movember.
I also want to take an opportunity to acknowledge one event that happens here on Vancouver Island each year, and that’s the Tour de Rock. Beginning in 1997, one police officer with a vision has led to a charity cycling event where police officers and emergency service personnel cycle Vancouver Island.
Starting in the north Island and riding down the south, they raise money for pediatric cancer research and support programs like Camp Good Times — 1,200 kilometres over a two-week ride. Since 1997, Tour de Rock has raised $52 million here for B.C. cancer.
Tour de Rock, for me, is a testament to the power of community engagement. From local businesses to schools, the whole community in every small town comes together to support this cause. Tour de Rock plays a crucial role in raising awareness about pediatric cancer and the challenges faced by so many families across our country and around the world.
This year I was particularly proud, in the community of Langford–Juan de Fuca, to be able to help celebrate five West Shore RCMP riders. I want to acknowledge them in this House: Const. Mason Harrison, Kris Valentine, Scott Hait, Justin Raycraft, Rusty Olsen; and while they’re not a member of the West Shore RCMP, they’re a proud member of the Saanich police, I also want to acknowledge one of my constituents, Shauna Bainbridge — all who have been able to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for their communities respectively and have been such strong role models for their junior riders as well.
I had a chance to talk to many of them about the long, difficult and emotional ride that this has been. But every bid helped, and I want to thank all the communities that helped raise well over $1 million. They ended their ride here at the Legislature on October 6, where they raised $1,027,559.46.
I hope the House will join me in congratulating and thanking all of the riders and everyone who participated.
BARNSIDE BREWING HARVEST FESTIVAL
I. Paton: I rise today to celebrate the incredible success of a local business in my riding that recently brought the community of Delta together with their first annual Barnside harvest music festival.
Barnside Brewing is a local craft brewery. What makes Barnside unique is that its ownership consists of four local farming families whose roots in the community date back to 1899. Their beer is proudly made from ingredients grown on the farm right here in my riding of Delta South. This farm-to-table model is achieved through strong collaborations with farmers across our community. It took a lot of work between Delta council, the Harris family and the farming community to put the dream together, but many years later, Barnside Brewing is thriving.
This year Barnside wanted to give back to the community. They worked with a local festival organizer to organize a unique music festival at historic Paterson Park in Ladner. Though it has sat empty for many decades, Paterson Park was once the site of magnificent standardbred horse racing. Well, fast-forward, and Paterson Park was once again full of life as an entertainment hub this summer. Once more, thousands of people flocked to the former racetrack, except this time instead of horses, it was to watch the musical performances.
When the folks at Barnside first thought of the idea for a music festival, they asked the city for permission to sell 5,000 tickets per day. However, by the time the event took place, they had sold over 10,000 tickets for the Friday night and over 12,000 tickets for Saturday. Vocal performers such as 54-40 and Warren Dean Flandez graced us with their musical talent. Other incredible Canadian acts such as the Sheepdogs, Chad Brownlee and The Road Hammers helped ensure the weekend was one we would never forget.
Afterwards, locals praised the event, with many saying that in all the years of living in Delta, this festival was the best thing to ever happen in our community.
So hats off to Barnside, to all the staff and volunteers who worked tirelessly to put this event together and to all the vendors selling fresh, local produce, merchandise and, of course, farm-fresh beer, whose efforts helped to make this event truly unforgettable.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS
R. Glumac: Usually I’ll use this time to talk about people or events in my community. Today I’m going to talk about a little bit of a more boring topic: legislation.
It’s something that affects each and every one of us in this province, and it’s something that we do here almost all day in the Legislature. We introduce, debate and pass new bills which become law. Those bills are typically tabled by ministers.
You probably won’t see bills tabled and passed by private members, as there isn’t really a process to do that in our Legislature. It’s been that way in British Columbia since the beginning, in 1871.
Recently the Special Committee to Review Private Members’ Business made recommendations to change this, to allow private members’ bills to move through the legislative process, similar to what currently exists in Alberta, Ontario and the House of Commons.
Private members’ bills are a little bit different than regular bills in that they can’t have a financial impact, but they can have a meaningful impact. In other parliaments around the world, private members’ bills have introduced significant social reforms, including legalizing same-sex marriage and abolishing capital punishment. In Canada, the Non-smokers’ Health Act was passed in 1986 as a private members’ bill, which banned smoking in the workplace.
Even if a private members’ bill doesn’t pass, debating them can and has elevated important ideas and can lead to positive change. I believe in my heart that good ideas come from all of us, each and every one of us. I look forward to where we go to from here.
Oral Questions
INFLATION AND COST OF LIVING
P. Milobar: The NDP’s out-of-control taxes and record-breaking inflationary deficits are driving the cost of living to unbearable heights and trapping families in their new normal of an NDP middle-class squeeze.
With mortgage rates at their highest point in two decades, James Sloan-Minshull and his husband are being forced out of their home. Their mortgage payments have increased by 60 percent, sending them back into the rental market. James says: “Everything has changed, from the grocery habits to the food my dog eats.” He’s going back into a rental market at the highest rents in Canada.
When will the Premier stop his out-of-control spending and record-breaking inflationary deficits that are breaking the backs of middle-class families like James and his husband?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. Actually, there’s a bit of good news for the member today. Inflation in Canada is down to 3.8 percent. But in B.C., it’s actually down to 3.3 percent, which is good news.
We’re definitely hoping the Bank of Canada won’t be raising the interest rates, because as things continue to go down…. Groceries are going down a bit; not as much as they should. But the member is right. Middle-class families are facing real challenges, and we need to do more to help them. We’re doing a lot, but we need to do more. We’re trying to take the pressure off of those middle-income families where….
You know, instead of cutting taxes for people at the top of the wage range, we’re actually reducing costs for people, and we’re going to keep doing that to keep helping people just like the very person that the member has mentioned.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
P. Milobar: Several economists now are warning NDP policies are going to directly result in the shrinking of the economy back by a decade and impact people $5,000 per year, per person in this province.
No amount of empty NDP promises can give James and his family their home back. Instead of helping families, the Premier’s NDP government has introduced 29 new or increased taxes since 2017. They’ve doubled the debt in six years and racked up the largest inflationary deficit in B.C.’s history.
James puts it bluntly: “It gets too much. To be able to afford to eat and pay all of my bills…with vehicles, with gas, with mortgage payments.” Like so many others, James is a direct casualty of the NDP’s middle-class squeeze.
Again, how much longer will B.C. families get squeezed for housing, gas and groceries under this NDP government?
Hon. K. Conroy: I do want to point out, to remind the member, there is an issue with the global economy, and we’ve been racing to deal with just that.
The member raises the cost of insurance for vehicles. We actually lowered the rate for ICBC costs for every person in the province at a certain — you know, for the base rates.
We are building more homes for middle-income people.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. K. Conroy: I think it’s odd that the member opposite doesn’t see that the inflation in B.C. is actually good news. It’s good news for people in this province. We are going to continue to provide services to people.
One of the taxes that he’s mentioned is the speculation tax, and the speculation tax has actually put more housing on the market — more housing ever.
I could go on, because there’s a number of things that we have done for middle-income people, and I’m looking forward to more questions to be able to address them.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson, second supplemental.
P. Milobar: It’s shocking that we have a Finance Minister that says inflation is good news for people in British Columbia — that they should be thankful. Only this government that likes to point fingers at everybody else thinks that inflation is good news.
Mr. Speaker, for month after month after month, B.C. outstripped the national average with inflation. They have one month where they’re a little bit below, and everyone is supposed to be happy. That is indicative of this government.
When can people expect real change from this government to bring down the inflationary costs they are feeling in their homes on a permanent basis, not a one-month blip on the record?
Hon. K. Conroy: I need to remind the member that as a provincial government, we do not bring down inflation. That’s the federal government. It’s a global issue as well.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Members.
Hon. K. Conroy: But we are doing things — much more than the members opposite ever did when they were in government.
We brought in the B.C. family benefit, and we boosted it this year permanently. I wonder if the member opposite…. Is that something that they would cut?
We brought in a child care program that is putting up to $900 a month back into people’s pockets. Is that something that the members opposite would cut, like they did when they formed government in 2001?
We are supporting families with meals programs in schools right across the province. Is that something that they would cut? Because we know it’s helping families.
The affordability credit put over $1,000 back into people’s pockets. The hydro credit put $100 back into people’s pockets. You have to ask: is that something that they would cut?
Interjections.
Hon. K. Conroy: I mean, they’re muttering, Speaker, because I think that they doth protest too much.
But you know, we’ve capped rental increases below the inflation rate, because we recognize that that needs to happen in this province. Is that something else that they would repeal?
POLICE SERVICES IN SURREY
M. Morris: The lawsuit and mess in Surrey represents a total failure of leadership by the Premier, and let me emphasize that it’s a mess that’s been caused by the NDP putting politics before the public good and leaving taxpayers to clean up the mess.
We need to restore transparency, respect for taxpayers and local autonomy to the process. The government can start that today by releasing the unredacted report on the Surrey police transition instead of hiding behind 500 pages of redacted policing report.
Will the Premier release the report, the full report, today?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.
First, the only issue around the transition has been the delay caused by the city of Surrey. They have now gone to court to try and have a review done of the decision that has been made. Legislation has been tabled in the House that will ensure that the decision to proceed with the transition to the Surrey police service will continue.
As for the redacted information that the member talks about, the member knows full well that that is not provincial information. That is RCMP information, and that relates to specific confidential RCMP staffing vacancy rates — all of those kinds of things — and it is up to them to decide whether that should be released or not. The member knows that, so the answer would be no.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Mackenzie, supplemental.
M. Morris: I find it ridiculous for the minister to stand there, and with the introduction of the bill, to ask the B.C. United to bail the NDP out of the mess that they’ve made. The foundation for this transition was flawed right from the beginning, and it’s the NDP’s indecision and politics that got us to where we are here today.
It doesn’t matter what shoulder patch an officer wears. The Premier’s soft-on-crime policies and his catch-and-release justice system will continue to fail Surrey residents and the people of B.C. We need to restore the trust and the transparency.
Will the minister release the full 500 pages of his redacted Surrey policing report today?
Hon. M. Farnworth: If there’s one thing that I will not be asking the opposition to do, it’s to bail the government out, because frankly, there’s no need to bail out what is the right decision.
I would remind that member, three former Solicitors General, all from his party, said the decision that I made in terms of continuing the transition to the Surrey police service was the right one.
As I said and will repeat again, that member knows full well that the redacted information is confidential RCMP information, which I am not allowed to release unless they were to say so. The member knows that.
Surrey is doing its thing. We have legislation in this House. The transition to the Surrey police service will continue.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT
POST-SECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS
S. Furstenau: For over a decade, post-secondary institutions in our province have been over-reliant on international students’ tuitions. These fees are not protected by the tuition limit policy, which means undergraduate international students pay 426 percent more than domestic students. We’ve heard from international students who rely on food banks because they can’t afford to eat.
This government repeatedly stresses the need to recruit and retain international students to contribute to the workforce and the economy. On the one hand, we say we value international students. On the other hand, they are exploited for their tuition, and we hear directly from them that they don’t get the supports they need to succeed.
To the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, B.C. is becoming known as a jurisdiction that takes advantage of international students. Is this the reputation we want?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for this very important question. We do welcome international students to our province. They’re an important part of our educational system, and I too have heard many of the stories that I know the member is referring to.
It is for that reason that we are putting together an international student framework that we’ll be able to share in the next number of months as we’re putting it together.
I also want to acknowledge, and I think it’s really important to acknowledge, that we recognize the model and the system has not been working as well as it should, and look forward to sharing with the member the framework we’re putting in place.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
FUNDING
REVIEW
S. Furstenau: I appreciate the recognition and response from the minister and the recognition that the model currently isn’t working.
In 2022, the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education undertook a sector-wide funding review. The results of this review have still been not released. An updated funding model for post-secondary is absolutely necessary to improve delivery and access to education, and the public has a right to know the findings of this review.
To the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, the funding review will provide invaluable essential information and data. When will this report be released to the public?
Hon. S. Robinson: The funding review was undertaken last year. It was submitted to my ministry late this summer. I hope to have my own review of the report in the next little while and will be happy to share it with the public as soon as I’ve had a chance to take a look at it.
POLICE SERVICES IN SURREY
B. Banman: Hard-working taxpayers in Surrey made a clear choice in the last election. Surrey voters voted for Mayor Brenda Locke, and they voted to keep the RCMP in Surrey. This NDP government is now taking an extreme authoritarian approach, using legislation to undermine the city of Surrey’s mandate, given to them by voters, to keep the RCMP in Surrey.
When this NDP Premier hears that his heavy-handed, tone-deaf, authoritarian approach is going to inevitably cost massive property tax increases for everyday hard-working Surrey families whose paycheques are already stretched thin by inflation on groceries, by the NDP’s punishing carbon tax grab and by rising mortgage rates, how does it make him feel?
The question to this NDP Premier: how does it feel to take money out of the pockets of hard-working families in Surrey?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The decision on the issue of the police transition in Surrey relates to the issue of public safety. That is first and foremost. That is why we put the $150 million on the table to deal with costs associated with the transition.
That $150 million…. The number was based on numbers supplied to us by the city of Surrey and verified independently — the $30 million a year. That’s how we came up with the $150 million to assist the city of Surrey in the cost of that transition.
Mr. Speaker: Fourth Party House Leader, supplemental.
B. Banman: In 2023, Surrey will spend approximately $166 million with the RCMP to serve 630 citizens…. That works out to around $263 per person, per capita, while Vancouver will spend approximately $401 million to serve 690,000 people, or around $581 per capita. On a per-capita basis, Vancouver’s police force costs more than twice as much as Surrey’s RCMP force.
Would this NDP Premier please explain to concerned Surrey families who are already stretched thin by inflation on groceries, by the NPD’s punishing carbon tax grab and by rising mortgage rates why this NDP government believes everyday hard-working families in Surrey can afford to pay more on property taxes — or better yet, to all taxpayers of British Columbia, why we can afford to pay more to subsidize the mess this NDP government has created by upending and ignoring the results of the democratic process in municipal elections in Surrey?
Why do they think they know better than the citizens of Surrey?
Hon. M. Farnworth: This has been, since the very beginning, about the issue of public safety, first and foremost, not only for Surrey but for the rest of the province. The decision was made based on the analysis done by the professionals in my ministry, by working with the RCMP, by information supplied by the city of Surrey on their ability to transition back. Their plan was found wanting.
Since that time, we have had delay after delay after delay by the city of Surrey. The legislation tabled ends that. The decision I made ends that. What the people of Surrey want is a transition to a police force. That is going to happen.
What may be of interest to the member, because as I said, the $150 million was based on numbers supplied to us by the city of Surrey on the differential of $30 million a year, is that the third-quarter results for the city of Surrey are now out, and they show that the city of Surrey has underspent their police budget, not even spending what they were supposed to have spent on their police budget, and they’re projecting a $44 million surplus.
What the city of Surrey needs to do is get on with the transition and stop wasting taxpayers’ money on fighting a decision that has been made and that is being confirmed in legislation.
CALL FOR AUDITOR GENERAL REVIEW
OF LYTTON FIRE RESPONSE
AND RECOVERY PROCESS
T. Stone: Last night at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Fraser-Nicola moved a motion for the committee to request that the Auditor General undertake “an examination of the government of British Columbia’s response and subsequent recovery efforts related to the June 30, 2021, wildfire that devastated the community of Lytton and immediate surrounding area, with a view to supporting the return to homes and community.”
Regrettably, at that meeting last night, the NDP majority on that committee said no. They voted the motion down. They said no to accountability and no to transparency for the suffering people of Lytton. It has been 839 days since the village burned down, and not a single person from the village has moved back home, let alone rebuilt their home or their business.
My question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier disavow the heartless decisions of his NDP colleagues and endorse the motion made by the member for Fraser-Nicola to request that the Auditor General conduct a full audit into the rebuilding of Lytton? Surely that’s the least this government can do.
Hon. B. Ma: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The devastation in Lytton has been life-changing for many residents. I know that the recovery can’t happen fast enough for people who just want to get back home as soon as they can. So it’s understandable that people have questions about the process.
Our focus right now needs to be on working together to drive forward the recovery and rebuilding work. The village is leading that work, and we’re doing everything we can to support the village so that work can happen faster.
I also want to emphasize how important the work underway is. The village of Lytton was built on top of a former Indigenous village site and burial ground. The archaeological findings so far demonstrate a rich history that has been preserved in a way that is found in few other places in the province.
The Nlaka’pamux people released a statement yesterday to share more about the story behind the findings, which so far include more than 7,000 artifacts dating back as much as 7,500 years, as well as multiple ancestral remains.
EMERGENCY SERVICES AT HOSPITALS
C. Oakes: People were shocked by a sign in the Cariboo Memorial Hospital declaring the ER closed unless a patient was imminently dying. The NDP tried to deny it, but the truth is out.
On that very day, my constituent Ken Shindle collapsed in Williams Lake. Because he wasn’t imminently dying, his wife, Myrtle, was told that the ER was closed and that he would be diverted to 100 Mile.
Ken writes, in his words: “I was just watching the BCTV news, and the minister was saying that there was no closure Monday night at the Williams Lake ER. I think the boy should check his facts.”
Does the Premier believe Cariboo residents like Ken and Myrtle should accept this dangerous NDP’s new normal of closed emergency rooms?
Hon. A. Dix: There is no accepting of that. In fact, we put in place, in September, a group of doctors to support emergency rooms across B.C.
We’ve made changes through Health Match B.C. and built a group of nurses who travel to support emergency rooms in B.C. in specific cases, and that includes in the Cariboo. We’re supporting emergency rooms through, for example, transformative APP contracts in communities such as Oliver, such as Merritt and such as Salmon Arm to support communities in B.C.
I would say we’ve discussed the issue of the closure of the Williams Lake hospital emergency room. There was no closure. I’m, of course, interested in hearing concerns raised by constituents, and I’ll follow up on this with the hon. member.
Interior Health has been clear, in Williams Lake, the Cariboo Memorial Hospital, that there has been no closure. But there are significant issues in Williams Lake. It’s why I went to Williams Lake to meet with doctors, to meet with nurses, to meet with health care providers. We’re going to continue to work to support these issues.
Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.
C. Oakes: The NDP expects Ken and Myrtle to dismiss their own eyes and buy into this hollow NDP promise, promises contradicted by the signs on the ER declaring they’re closed unless you’re imminently dying.
Ken, having endured this nightmare, warns: “If the minister says that the ER wasn’t closed…. He better check his facts. Myrtle and I will say the truth.”
Why does the Premier expect Ken and Myrtle to trust his government’s rhetoric over their firsthand experience with the NDP’s new normal of failing health care?
Hon. A. Dix: Of course, we’ve checked the facts.
An extraordinary effort, I think, is being made to support, in particular, rural emergency rooms across B.C. That means new contract arrangements. That means pools of doctors and nurses supporting communities. That means policies that promote nursing, 40 of them in the health human resources plan, which has led, in part, to a net increase in nurses of 5,221 this year. This contrasts significantly to the period from 2009 to 2016, when the number of registered nurses in B.C. actually went down.
We’re going to continue to make these efforts. Of course, I’ll follow up with the member’s constituent.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES
IN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
M. Bernier: Under the NDP’s new normal, you must be on the brink of death, it appears, to get help. Even in hospitals, nurses are being told to call 911 for their patients. It has had fatal consequences for people in my riding.
Imagine the devastation felt by my constituent Richard. His wife, who has now sadly passed away, was bleeding from her nose and mouth while in a Prince George hospital bed, calling for help, and none came. She was forced to call 911 from her hospital bed inside the hospital. All this and the Health Minister calls the crisis just the new normal.
How can the Premier possibly defend this NDP new normal when even patients bleeding and, sadly, dying in hospital beds are compelled to call 911?
Hon. A. Dix: Just because the member opposite represents something that was completely different than what I said in that way, it doesn’t mean I said it in the way that he’s suggesting. It’s absolutely not the case.
What I have said, and what is true, is that we have, in our hospitals today, approximately 9,800, on any given day, in-patients, people in-patient to the hospital. This is more than the base bed capacity of the health care system and 1,000 more than it had been in previous years.
What have we done? We’ve added to the base acute care of the province. We provided a health human resources plan that is adding doctors and nurses and health care workers across the system. We are, in fact, responding.
In Dawson Creek…. I was there to announce the construction of a new hospital. I met with doctors and community members and nurses to address the specific problems in that community and will be doing so in Prince George soon.
E. Sturko: Under the NDP, high spending equals disastrous results. Day after day, we’re hearing tragic stories of the NDP’s new normal at the overrun Surrey Memorial Hospital. Last month a man in his 40s in desperate need of mental health services was escorted off the premises. Just minutes later he jumped in front of a car and died by suicide.
This is a crisis that’s traumatizing front-line staff, yet the NDP ignores our private member’s bill amending the Mental Health Act, which is designed to save lives. They’re utterly failing to fix our overwhelmed hospitals.
How can the Premier continue to tolerate the NDP’s new normal, which leads to these kinds of tragedies and traumatizes front-line health care staff?
Hon. A. Dix: In June, I spent a couple of days at Surrey Memorial Hospital meeting with health care staff, meeting with community members. What resulted from that were 30 specific actions that we’re taking to respond to it. Three months later I reported on the progress on every single one of those actions.
In addition to that, of course, we’re building a second hospital in Surrey, which the opposition opposes. We are putting new long-term-care beds into Surrey, which the opposition opposes.
We are responding specifically to what we heard from health care workers. That means improved cardiac services, improved renal services, supports in emergency rooms, supports and work with hospitalists to address their contract issues, which were significant at the time.
We’re going to continue to act on Surrey and lead on Surrey.
PAYMENTS TO
INTERIOR HEALTH AUTHORITY OFFICIAL
CHARGED WITH CRIME
S. Bond: The public deserves answers about why Dr. de Villiers, a man who faced charges of sexual assault and interference against a child and was subsequently convicted, was paid $350,000 in the 2022 fiscal year. This individual was arrested in June 2021, yet amid horrifying charges, he was inexplicably allowed to return to work and to continue to collect his six-figure salary.
Even after his arrest, he continued to receive $20,000 in benefits, $24,000 in pension and $50,000 in vacation pay. No explanation has been given by the NDP government for this outrageous use of public funds.
Can the Premier account for this egregious and indefensible use of taxpayer money?
Hon. A. Dix: It’s our obligation to follow the law. In this case, Dr. de Villiers was found responsible. He was found guilty, and he was immediately fired.
Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.
S. Bond: He was charged, arrested, convicted and sentenced. And all the while, he was getting paid a six-figure salary. He stayed on the payroll of Interior Health.
Last February, when we raised this issue…. The minister dismissed it then. Now we learn this individual has been paid $325,000 in ’22-23, a full year after he was arrested for sexual assault against a child. People struggling in British Columbia watched in disbelief as their hard-earned tax dollars continued to be paid to a child sex offender after he was arrested.
Will the Premier take responsibility and provide an explanation for how this possibly could have happened in our province?
Hon. A. Dix: Like the hon. member, I find the actions, which have been adjudicated in court and someone found guilty, abhorrent. That is why, on the day that Dr. de Villiers was found guilty, he was fired.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. L. Popham: I have the honour to present the B.C. Arts Council Annual Report 2022-23 and supporting documentation.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading, Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT
(continued)
M. Lee: Just to continue on from my remarks for the time I have remaining, speaking to Bill 31, I wish to clarify a point that I was making yesterday in the first part of my remarks.
I referred to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, his reversal of position in respect of Métis Nation B.C. I have the letter here with me that I was referring to, and I do see that as I pick this conversation up with the minister responsible for Bill 31, there are some points of clarification in terms of how this government sees the meaning of “Indigenous governing body.”
I will say that, from this letter, it’s the government’s view: “While the province agrees that Métis people in British Columbia have non-site-specific section 35 rights, our view is that, at present, MNBC does not have status or authority as an Indigenous governing body within the meaning of the Declaration Act. In part, this view is informed by our understanding that section 35 rights are held collectively, and therefore an Indigenous governing body under the Declaration Act must be authorized by the proper rights-holding collective.”
So this gets at my further…. I’m only using this as a point of example in terms of understanding what the government’s current interpretation and application of “Indigenous governing body” is under Bill 31. I think that that is important. Certainly, I would also say that, of course, presumably, the government still sees Métis peoples as being Indigenous peoples in this province.
We know the subject matter of Bill 31 is not just land-based emergencies. They do refer to, as an emergency, a transmissible disease. I know that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, as the lead member responsible as shadow minister for this role, will be also probing the nature of the description or definition of “emergency” in our committee review.
I wanted to go further. I was talking about some of the important provisions that deal with agreements. We know that under part 3, agreements with Indigenous governing bodies include various forms of agreements: coordination agreements, decision-making agreements, specified coordination agreements and statutory power agreements.
There is a lot here to review with the minister. I will just highlight that there are a number of points here, as we look at this, that we’ll want to pursue at the committee stage — for example, the interplay between this provision and section 90 and section 120 of the bill. Section 90 and section 120 of the bill refer to “Consultation with Indigenous Peoples.” Also, under 120, it refers to “Consultation, engagement and cooperation with Indigenous peoples.”
The meaning of “consultation” is going to be important. There are various points under this bill where the minister must consider comments received or the rights of Indigenous peoples on whose behalf an Indigenous governing body acts. The words around “consider” the rights, “consider” comments, “consult” and then “consent” — these are all important measures and standards for which Indigenous governing bodies must understand and appreciate the context in which this is working.
This is something that we will be wanting to probe and also understand in a deeper context as we look at a fairly technical bill, in which, again, much of the definition and details are being left to regulation.
I mentioned yesterday…. For example, there’s reference here to how, under a coordination agreement, it may include one or more of the following parties to the agreement: a local authority, another Indigenous governing body or a participating authority. Again, the reference to another Indigenous governing body suggests that in respect of the lands for which we are looking at an emergency management system and disaster recovery, there’s another Indigenous governing body that ought to be a party to a coordination agreement.
We’ll want to have a deeper understanding as to how, with these types of coordination agreements, under section 34 for example, we will be coordinating and involving another Indigenous governing body and for what purpose, what reason. Presumably, of course, it relates to some of the concerns and considerations around overlapping rights and titles assertion.
I’m just going to look for another reference here, which I want to give, by way of example, to the minister and her team as they prepare and consider the committee review.
Under section 37 of this bill, it refers to…. Subsection 37(4) refers to section 7(2) to (5) of DRIPA.
I’m interested, as we look at statutory power agreements…. This is a very important part and provision in DRIPA. As we know, we’ve seen this government exercise that section of DRIPA in respect of the Tahltan Nation. I know that the government has other agreements that are under negotiation and discussion with First Nations in this province, including, of course, in respect of resource development.
But in this context, under emergency management and disaster recovery, I’m curious as to why subsection 7(1) of DRIPA is not referred to or incorporated as part of this bill. This is an example as to how this government is interpreting and involving the powers and the provisions, the jurisdiction that’s set out under the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and incorporating that as part of this bill.
Subsection 7(1) does refer to…. The reference to an exercise of a statutory power of decision must be done jointly by the Indigenous governing body and the government or another decision-maker, and the consent of the Indigenous governing body must be sought before the exercise of a statutory power of decision.
This is where the interplay between this bill and DRIPA is going to be important. As I mentioned in my comments, to date, on this bill, this is a land-based bill for some part, and as we interpret and try and apply the provisions of DRIPA into this land-based bill for some parts of emergency and management, we’ll need to understand how that is going to work.
As we look at the importance of the understanding, we need to get this right. We need to ensure that Indigenous peoples and First Nation communities are provided with the right authorities and jurisdictions in a transparent, manageable way.
We know that as we look at ways in which the federal and provincial governments continue to support and provide self-governance rights to First Nations, as provided under the constitution and as referred to under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the meaning of consent, consultation and comment is going to be important, because we know that, under DRIPA, free, prior and informed consent is an important principle.
So understanding how we are working between the jurisdictions of the local authority, government and Indigenous governing bodies will be important. Understanding how other Indigenous communities that have not yet achieved the standard that this government has set for an Indigenous governing body will be important to understand.
As we look at recognition by, for example, the Haida Nation through legislation in this House, as we did in the last session in the spring, we need to understand what governance standard the government is applying to Indigenous governing bodies. What demonstration — in the words of the minister’s letter to Métis Nation B.C. — is a demonstration of the authorization by the proper rights-holding collective?
As we have seen with the Wet’suwet’en peoples, for example, and the nations then involved, there has been an ongoing process to get clarification and validation, evidence of the authorization by the proper rights-holding collective. Métis Nation B.C. doesn’t have it, as set out in this letter by the minister on May 30.
I do know, as we look at the committee stage, because of the continued advancements in a necessary way with First Nations on our lands, because of the challenges we just heard in respect of emergency recovery in Lytton that the Minister of Emergency Management responded to, issues around transparency for communities, including for those residents in Lytton who have been waiting over 849 days for that recovery, we need to have a situation where we’re not pitting local communities against First Nations.
For a minister in this government to stand up…. I appreciate the respect, the understanding of those heritage sites and the ancestral lands and what’s been found and certainly the nation that has disclosed their findings, but we have to have both an emergency management system and a recovery system, of course, that doesn’t cause more strain in our relationships with First Nations and Indigenous communities.
When our House leader asked the question, on behalf of the member for Fraser-Nicola, as she sought transparency in a motion moved in the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, we’re asking on behalf of all British Columbians for the transparency that’s necessary, because residents and the community have been waiting 849 days.
It concerns me that we are pitting these communities against each other, arguably because there’s a lack of transparency and understanding. I don’t see how a minister of this government can stand up in response to a meaningful and responsible question around accountability and transparency and say, in the course of this emergency management legislation, that we’re not going to provide for that level of accountability and transparency.
People are waiting for 849 days plus, and they don’t have the answers from this government. We understand the importance, as the minister said, of the need to move with urgency. That is what the member for Fraser-Nicola and other members from our official opposition caucus have been asking for — for days, for weeks, for months — in this chamber and out in the community. At this juncture, as we’re looking at major change for how we deal with emergency management and recovery in this province, we can’t have a simple answer to transparency and accountability at this juncture.
In the context of a delay of 849 days, we should at least have that. I would hope that the minister will answer, directly, these questions as the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, myself and other members of our official opposition caucus ask those questions. We need to ensure, even under this bill, that we have a framework for transparency and accountability as to how local authorities are working with government, are working with Indigenous governing bodies, to deal with both emergency management and disaster recovery. It didn’t happen in Lytton.
I believe, in the answer that I heard today in question period, that it is not satisfactory. It’s not satisfactory in the sense that this government has to play the role for everyone. We understand, again — and I certainly understand — the respect that’s necessary for the findings of the local nations there.
I understand that, but we have not seen the level of understanding for the local community. They’re still waiting. Those people who lost their homes are still waiting. This is my concern. Government should never pit and use First Nations as a shield. I say that with utmost respect. As we look at the nature of the combined jurisdictions of local authorities, government and First Nations, as incorporated in this Bill 31, I hope that I do not continue to hear answers like that from this government.
I acknowledge the importance of the response, but the importance of the response was to a question around transparency and accountability. I hope that as we look at Bill 31 in the context of this committee review, that we understand the mechanisms, the administrative burdens and the amounts of reports that need to be filed, administered and provided by First Nations and Indigenous governing bodies that have not been provided the resources and the capacity funding in order to work through the complex nature of this legislative framework.
These are the important questions we need to be asking, because what has led to 849 days of delay with Lytton? Where has been the support of this government to help First Nations and Indigenous communities to get through what they need to deal with in response to recovering the Lytton community, including for the local nations? We’ve seen some latitude and progress made with the federal government, but where has this provincial government been?
I would like to again join my member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I look forward to the committee review.
J. Tegart: I thank my colleague for his comments and for his overview of exactly how complex this issue is.
The importance of Bill 31 cannot be overstated for people in my riding. When I look at the explanatory note, it says that the purposes of this bill are:
“To account for all four phases of emergency management, which are mitigation, preparation, response and recovery.
“To streamline and clarify the powers and duties of the minister, provincial emergency management organization, ministries, public sector agencies and local authorities.
“To facilitate agreements, consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples with respect to emergency management.
“To clarify the roles of critical infrastructure owners.
“To incorporate into legislation lessons learned in recent years in responding to floods, wildfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.
“To modernize and improve consistency of language in the legislation.”
I think as you listen to the response from the opposition in regard to the bill that’s on the floor, there are just so many factors to be taken into consideration. This bill is so incredibly important to everyone who has been affected by an evacuation, by an evacuation alert, by the loss of property, by the loss of their home, by staying in a motel room for over 800 days. Displacement: two years of COVID and two years of no home.
This bill is so much more than words. It is how we respond with empathy, understanding, transparency and clarity, and give people the trust that they need to have that we do actually have their backs, that we have systems in place and that we’re willing to ask the difficult questions. We’re their voice, we are the people who make the rules, and I can tell you that we have a lot of work to do.
I want to start by thanking everyone who has worked on this bill. I know that since being an MLA, since 2013, I don’t think there’s been a year that my riding has not had some sort of an emergency.
It is incredible, the people who work on the front lines, the volunteers who register people, the volunteers who look after all the animals affected — the dogs, the cats, the gerbils, whatever people have as pets in their homes and find difficulty as they evacuate.
I remember being in Kamloops during the Elephant Hill fire, and it was just absolutely incredible to see the groups that were there to help out. I feel an obligation as an MLA in this House that we ensure that this bill answers and fills the gaps that we’ve seen. I expect, and my people in my riding have high expectations, that 209 clauses will address those weaknesses in the system which have put up barriers for those affected by disasters.
Any MLA who has had a disaster in their riding…. One of the first places you visit is the ESS and the emergency centre set up to welcome people who have left home with, hopefully, a packed bag and their medications and what they need for the first three days, at least, for evacuation. But never did it enter my mind that in November, after an atmospheric river, my people would find themselves in the cold weather sleeping in a car because we weren’t prepared.
Never in my mind did I think that people would have to fight so hard when they are strapped for dollars to get a reimbursement for a hotel. Never in my mind would I think that in 2013, the Elephant Hill fire, when we went to the ministry and said the voucher system isn’t working….
In 2013 and 2023, we’re doing the same thing: still giving one voucher, and you must spend it all. You’re in a hotel room, hopefully with a hotel fridge. Where do you put all those groceries that you’re forced to buy? I recall being in a grocery store and having the person with a voucher being absolutely amazed that the rules were you had to spend every cent of it, one shot. So she turned around to the person in the line behind her and said: “Can I please buy your groceries?” Now that is generous, but that tells me our system isn’t working.
I want to talk a little bit about Fraser-Nicola. For those of you who haven’t visited…. Many have. Many drive through. We start south of Hope, and we go up the Fraser Canyon all the way to north of 70 Mile, over to Gold Bridge and Bralorne outside of Lillooet and east to just outside of Kamloops, over to Merritt, down the Coquihalla Highway and all the way down Highway 3 to the U.S. border.
So we are a huge riding. We’ve got lots of land. We’ve got lots of farming. We depend on forestry. We have resource industries like mining. Teck is located in my riding.
We have generational farms and ranches. We have generational forestry workers. It breaks their hearts to see what we’re doing right now in regards to wildfires. When we decide structures and people are the only things we’re going to protect, it says something to the people who work on the land.
Two years after the Elephant Hill fire, I held a round table for the farmers and ranchers in the Clinton-70 Mile-Loon Lake area. I pulled them together because we were coming up to a timeline where, if you don’t apply for the funding or the support by this date, you’re not going to get it. We wanted to see how they were doing.
There sat someone who was probably third generation on their ranch. He stood up, and he said: “I can’t bring myself to apply for one more grant. I am a proud person who is used to looking after myself and my family, and here I am. I can’t tell you what it feels like when I get a response that says, ‘You didn’t fill it in properly,’ or ‘No, you don’t qualify for this grant.’” He said: “Quite honestly, my wife and I just can’t do it one more time.”
He said: “The wildfire came through our area. They saved my house. My house is insured. They burned my fields, burned my fences. My cattle popped like popcorn, but they saved my house. I sit, and I live in black — no trees, no fields, no cattle. Can’t sell the ranch. And that’s what I’ve got left.”
You look, and you think: “I want to look at this bill and see if it will make a difference for those people that feel left behind.”
I will talk about the people at Pressy Lake. Pressy Lake was one of my first experiences. I didn’t even know where it was. It’s outside of 70 Mile. A wildfire crew came in, knocked on the doors because evacuation was on alert and probably going to full evacuation. They actually asked the locals where to put the pumps in the lake and where it would be appropriate to put sprinklers on their homes.
People felt that someone cared. They truly did. They packed their bags and, in good faith, they left their community. They were guaranteed or felt they were guaranteed by the words of the firefighters: “We’re here. We’ve got your back.”
Imagine their surprise when they came home to a community burned to the ground — no hoses, no pumps, no sprinklers, no idea what happened while they were away. No eyes on their community is what they felt.
How do you get information? How do you find out what happened when the only people there are people who told you that the sprinklers, the pumps, the hoses would be there to protect your homes or your cabins? Out of the words of one of the workers, it was: “We’ve never lost a structure.”
Well, Pressy Lake became a voice for what is wrong with what we’re doing. Pressy Lake is one of those voices that makes situations like the Shuswap this year happen, because the public is slowly losing faith and losing trust in our systems.
In this bill, I certainly hope that we’re going to address the lack of trust from the public — and not just, “Trust us; I’m from government, and I’m here to help,” but actually building the trust that is needed in order to keep our people safe, not just the public but our front-line people.
Fraser-Nicola has been the epicentre of climate disasters over the last seven years. It’s not a title that I’m proud of, but it is a reality that I live every day. We were hit in 2021 with the atmospheric river, with Highway 1, Highway 3, Highway 5, Highway 8 and the Duffey Lake Road all going out, and we lost lives.
During the atmospheric river, we had incredible, heroic things happen, like the community of Hope that looked after all of the people that had no place or no way to get out.
Freshet flooding year after year, in many areas, but particularly in the community of Cache Creek.
Wildfires every year affecting the villages of Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Clinton, Spences Bridge, Lytton, Lillooet, Gold Bridge, Gun Lake, Downton Lake, Logan Lake, Skeetchestn, Merritt, Shackan, Nooaitch, Cook’s Ferry and all points in between.
The sad thing is I often think about that rancher’s words about living in black as you drive through and see the new scars that are left behind by the wildfires.
Out of the wildfires, of course, come landslides. My people on Highway 8 who were hit — first by the wildfire in 2021 that burned all the way from Lytton up the Fraser Canyon, up the Thompson Valley, up the Nicola Valley — evacuated cattle to Vanderhoof, finally got their cattle home, and they experienced the atmospheric river on the Nicola River.
These are ranchers who make their living farming, growing hay and feeding the province. Hit by wildfire, hardly got home, hit by the atmospheric river. By that time, a number of them said: “I’m not leaving. I don’t care what government says. I’m not leaving, because you know what? I don’t believe they’ve got my back.”
Then after the atmospheric river, where the Nicola River took acres of property, and what it didn’t take, it put mud and debris all over, the fields that were beside the river. I have people in Spences Bridge who actually lost not only their house to the river, but they lost all the land they owned. I mean, how do you tax them? There is nothing left.
Those are the people that feel and wonder why they have to fight so hard for support.
We need a system that works for the people. When there’s a disaster and an emergency, people aren’t thinking about how they can get everything and as much as they can from the government. They’re thinking about surviving. In my experience of being their MLA, our systems aren’t working for them. And these are good people.
We’ve had landslides all over the riding due to wildfire damage, and often a landslide which comes after is not eligible for funding assistance. My ranchers on Highway 8 went through the wildfire, went through the atmospheric river, and then they had a landslide. You put your hands up in the air, and you think: “Oh my God, what more can I take?” It’s disheartening when you’ve faced so many challenges, and every time you think that government is going to support you, you end up fighting for it.
One of my communities that has been severely affected by flooding is the small community of Cache Creek. Many people will have driven through it. It’s maybe 1,100 people. Small place. It’s got a trickle of a creek that comes through Cache Creek and joins the Bonaparte River. But every spring that trickle becomes a torrent.
I can’t tell you how many times Cache Creek has come down, taken out the culvert or come over the culvert and run through the fire hall — they open the doors on both sides, and away goes the water — and how many times, because of the rules we have on recovery, you have to fix what you had. Well, quite obviously, the second, third, fourth, fifth time it happens….
Putting back what we had before isn’t working. We need to have the ability to take a look at what needs to be done to mitigate flooding in the future. We need to do more than talk about it.
Plus, the village of Cache Creek is expected to put up 20 percent of the recovery cost. Now, you think about a tax base of 1,100 people. They don’t have the money to do that. They need a plan, and they need government to be serious about mitigation, to say: “We have an opportunity here in this season of flooding to actually do what’s right.” Maybe it’s to take the culvert out and build a bridge. Maybe it’s to ensure that the highway, which is a government infrastructure…. The highway needs a bridge, not a culvert.
Cache Creek is one of those examples that we need to learn from, and we need to quit doing what we’ve always done just because they’re the rules. We need to change the rules.
The city of Merritt. Atmospheric river, 2021, 11 o’clock at night. Mass evacuation of the full city due to flooding and infrastructure damage. People on the ground did the best they could, given the situation, but it was clear that the system was not ready and not prepared.
Many of the evacuees had less than a pleasant experience. That was in November. November is cold. It’s winter. People slept in their cars. Many found they had to return to the ESS numerous times. It’s a story told over and over in the Ombudsman’s report.
Those are my people. Those are people across this province who have been through one of the toughest things they will ever go through. We were not ready. We must do better. My question is: does Bill 31 address the challenges of ESS?
The other question I have, as we look at disasters like November. Our volunteers had worked all summer. They were tired. When we look at the ESS system, we really have to think about that because they’re the front line, talking to people who are anxious, who are angry, who are scared, who don’t know where they’re going. We need to support those people in those centres.
In Merritt, flood recovery was assisted by some incredible groups like Samaritan’s Purse, Salvation Army, Rotary and so many others. But we were working against Mother Nature, trying to clean up flood debris, empty basements of muck and debris and could feel the winter weather every step of the way. Many homes froze before they raced against time.
In situations like this, decisions must be swift and timely. Does Bill 31 recognize this and enable it? That’s my question.
Wildfires. The 2017 wildfire season started with the Elephant Hill fire. It burned up the hill just south of Ashcroft, burned through the Ashcroft Indian reserve, taking out 13 homes, giving people just minutes to leave their houses. Continued down Highway 1 towards Cache Creek, taking out a dairy barn and burning through the Boston Flats trailer court.
One of the lessons learned there was there was only one escape route, and thank God people got out. But we need to ensure, as we look at how we deal with emergencies, that we have the appropriate escape routes.
The Elephant Hill fire continued to Loon Lake, Clinton, Green Lake and Pressy Lake. The provinces called in the armed forces. People experienced a difference, for the first time, between evacuation and evacuation alert in my area. So many experiences from these early fires explain how we got to some of the situations experienced in the most recent fires.
I’ve talked about Pressy Lake. I haven’t talked about the power of social media during emergencies, because even if government doesn’t share information, communities do. People do. They tell of their experiences. So many of their experiences are challenging. What it does is it undermines the trust that people have in the services that we provide.
June 30, Lytton. Everyone in this House should be able to talk about Lytton with the number of times I’ve been in this House, to beg for help.
Lytton finds itself… Today, new information from the minister. So what’s the plan is the question. As my colleague said, in regards to respect for the process for First Nations, we also need to have a plan from government. We need the leadership that has been the huge gap in the two years and four months since Lytton burned down. Government has a huge role to play here.
I am absolutely hopeful this bill will fill some of those gaps, because if the story of Lytton is the story of Westbank and the story of Monte Lake and the story of any place that has been burned, we are in trouble.
We must learn from what has happened in Lytton, and my motion last night at the Public Accounts Committee came out of the fact that I can’t get information. My public is demanding it. They deserve it. All the talk about partnerships, transparency and “We’ve got your back.” You need to show us, not talk about it.
Fraser-Nicola continues to do its best to recover. We are pleased with the fact that after a very, very long wait, there is legislation on the floor of this House.
I urge government to learn from Lytton, to learn from all of our experiences, because if you’re not transparent, if you don’t share information, there are others who will fill in that gap, and that may not be the information you want. So I urge you to be transparent, to release reports, to build the trust that our people on the front line deserve.
T. Stone: I am pleased to rise and participate in a debate on Bill 31.
Before I offer my observations of this legislation, I want to acknowledge and thank, from the bottom of my heart, the tireless efforts of the member for Fraser-Nicola, who I think embodies what being that local constituency-focused MLA is all about. It’s about showing up for your communities. It’s about standing up for your communities. It’s about fighting for your communities.
I can’t think of many other parts of the province…. Certainly we’ve been hit hard in the Cariboo and the Thompson and the Kootenays and the North. Wildfire, droughts and floods are more prevalent and more severe everywhere, but I cannot think of anywhere in this province that has been hit harder, on an ongoing basis, than Fraser-Nicola.
When you think of the fires that have ravaged communities — Elephant Hill, and you think of, obviously, Lytton, which the member spoke about. You think of all of the flooding events that have impacted that riding, whether it be Cache Creek, which seems to be almost an annual reality for the people in that community, and all of the flooding that wiped out so many bridges and such critical infrastructure on the Coquihalla Highway, the rural side roads that have been washed out on a routine basis and, of course, drought, which is layered on top of all of the above.
The only thing, I think, that has enabled folks in Fraser-Nicola, which really embodies the spirit of British Columbians to move forward…. It’s because of the resilience of the people who live there, the resilience of the communities that are located there and, I think, the resilience and the hard work, the dedication, the passion of the member for Fraser-Nicola.
I find her words and the heart that she shows always, in this place and outside this place…. It’s a tough act to follow, but I will do my best.
As I said, these natural disasters and these climate events are becoming more prevalent, and the severity is increasing. The economic toll that these events are taking in our communities is staggering.
Just when we think, in a wildfire season, for example…. We’ve said that it can’t get any worse. The season can’t start earlier and end longer and ravage so much economically viable timber, ravage communities and infrastructure. Just when we think it can’t possibly get any worse, the next season arrives, and we seem to set all kinds of new records, records that none of us are excited to highlight and champion.
The reality is that these types of natural disasters, these wildfires, these flooding events and these drought conditions are here. They’re going to be here, and they’re going to likely continue to get worse.
It requires a modernization of our approach, a modernization of how we ready for these events. How we prepare British Columbians and communities and infrastructure. How we mitigate the impacts of these events. How we fight them when they’re happening, in the case of wildfires. How we better mobilize the resources to attack wildfires earlier and harder.
How we actually help British Columbians who are impacted by these events while the events are unfolding, ensuring that the emergency services and supports that people need are actually there when they need them. And of course, how we better help British Columbians recover from these natural disasters.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
We will have a lot of questions, as the official opposition, about this legislation once we get to the committee stage.
I actually think there have been some very worthy presentations in second reading, from all sides of the House on this bill to this point. Certainly, those of us that represent areas in rural parts of the province, whether it be in the Cariboo or the Kootenays, even West Kelowna, which is right on the edge of a major interface…. I think the observations that I have heard, in the time that there has been debate on this bill, have really highlighted a range of common themes.
What I hope to canvass somewhat in my remarks is…. Okay. I think we, generally, are all saying the same thing. We’re all acknowledging the same challenges. Does this legislation actually address, in a meaningful and focused and, frankly, adequate manner, those particular challenges?
With that, I will reserve my right to continue my comments at a later date. I move the House do now adjourn debate.
I will say it again. I move adjournment of the debate and ask that the House do sit again.
T. Stone moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), 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 1:30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT
ENFORCEMENT
ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 27; J. Routledge in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, to order.
Clauses 42 and 43 approved.
On clause 44.
M. de Jong: Good morning. Given the time available, I’ll try to be as brief as I can with any preambles to questions.
Sub 44(1) — I’m interested in this aspect of it. It creates the authority for an enforcement officer to delegate responsibility for a service of certain documents to, amongst others, the judgment creditor, and then, with consent of the judgment creditor, others. I’m going to focus on the judgment creditor.
My concern is this. Given that that authority exists, and given what I expect to be the demands that will be placed on the civil enforcement officers, I fully expect that they will wish to take advantage of that provision and say to judgment creditors, “The obligation for service of documents will fall to you,” requiring not only the service of the document but the swearing of affidavits of service as well.
This process was designed to streamline and make the enforcement of money judgments easier. I’m not certain how requiring judgment creditors to perform that function in the way that this contemplates is making that any easier.
Hon. N. Sharma: First, I just want to start by introducing the people that work with me today: Tyler Nyvall and Darin Thompson are here. I’m grateful for their work and contribution.
This was a provision that was recommended by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The purpose is to facilitate in circumstances where lawyers are in play, and it’s easier for lawyers to continue to play that role when it comes to the delegation of that power or duty. It’s important to note that under subsection (b), the judgment creditor is by consent, so they can decline that in circumstances where they don’t feel like it’s appropriate to take on that role.
M. de Jong: I understand the Attorney’s answer with respect to sub (b).
Sub (a), as far as I read it, does not require consent. The civil enforcement officer can delegate responsibility for providing notice to the judgment creditor. I don’t think the judgment creditor, unless I’m reading it incorrectly, has to consent to that. That responsibility can be transferred to them, whether they want it or not.
Hon. N. Sharma: I take the member’s point about clarity. I’m told that the way this was drafted, this section, subsection (2), brings the clarity that the member suggests where it says, “A person who accepts a delegation under subsection (1)….” It ties to that consent being important or necessary.
M. de Jong: All right. Well, let’s be clear, then. Is the Attorney saying that if I am a judgment creditor, I have secured my judgment, I have registered my judgment with the registry, and it’s now time to provide documentation to the judgment debtor, perhaps to come in for an examination — that if the civil enforcement officer says to me, “We’re busy here; we’re assigning responsibility for the service of these documents to you, the judgment creditor,” I as judgment creditor can say: “No, you’re not; I don’t agree; your job; you do it”? Do I have that right?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.
Clause 44 approved.
On clause 45.
M. de Jong: There are two aspects to this clause that I just wanted to take a moment to explore. It strikes me that depending on the case and the nature of the judgment debtor, this can be a pretty complicated document, when I look at the kinds of instructions and the kinds of information that need to be included.
Maybe I’ll start with this. If I am an unsophisticated litigant who has my judgment, has registered my judgment and knows who the judgment debtor is, am I able to say to the civil enforcement officer, “Try to collect on my judgment,” or do I have to provide more specific instructions than that?
Again, I think the impression that was purposely left was that for folks who secured a money judgment, they could register, go to a civil enforcement officer, and say: “Here’s my judgment. Go and collect, on my behalf, the money and any monies that are owed to you relating to the cost of that collection.” This seems to suggest that I have to provide, as a judgment creditor, far more specific information.
Maybe I’m reading it incorrectly. Maybe I do have the option of saying to the civil enforcement officer, “Go get them; go get my money,” and that’s it. I’m curious to know how the Attorney believes this is going to work in practice.
Hon. N. Sharma: We’ll start with the principle that I think we have talked about quite a bit, which is that the whole goal of this is to make sure that it’s user-friendly and accessible to everybody that needs to access these services.
Although parts of the legislation provide the powers to prescribe, it may not be necessary to do that. The sections give that flexibility to refine the process over time.
To the member’s question: when it comes to a person that would need extra help, first of all, if you look at subsection (a), a simple statement of “please collect on all property under this judgment” would suffice to meet that. Also, they can work with either their lawyer, if they have one, or the chief enforcement officer to seek out help if they need to.
M. de Jong: Well, in theory, that sounds promising. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve spent a little bit of time in the court processes, and I don’t know that the civil enforcement officers in the office of the civil enforcement officers are necessarily going to have a place where a judgment creditor can go and sit down and have a chat about how to most effectively construct their enforcement instruction.
Now, if the Attorney is saying on the record here today, “Yes, they will,” okay. But that has not been my experience with any registry, or most registries, associated with the judicial proceedings and collection proceedings.
Secondly, although it comes after this part in the legislation, it strikes me that a judgment creditor is only going to be in a position, given what’s required in sub 45(2), to address the requirements of sub 45(2) with an enforcement instruction after they have sat down and obtained information from the judgment debtor unless they may possess some information independent of that.
Does the Attorney expect that, in many cases, it will be necessary to first proceed with the request for the obtaining of information from judgment debtors and examination of a judgment debtor before an enforcement instruction can be properly crafted?
Hon. N. Sharma: To the member’s first question about help, we will initiate and have a service contract with the providers that we are asking to perform the service, and of course, we can put in there expectations of service.
The starting point of that is to have a very low-barrier, potentially prescribed form that allows people to be self-directed in their ability to fill it out. But barring that, you could put in those contracts — we would — service standards that would be about providing a level of support to people that would need it.
Starting with the low-barrier nature of the form, I’m told that Alberta and Saskatchewan have a model that we’re interested in looking at where it is very low barrier.
In terms of the second question that was about the order, the way this would probably generally work would be that an enforcement instruction would contain a very broad statement about “please collect and seize all property related to,” and also asking for a questionnaire and an examination. Through that process, if it’s uncovered that there needs to be a supplemental enforcement instruction provided, then that’s something that’s also possible.
M. de Jong: Let’s go down to sub 45(d). I know that the Attorney has done her best to point out that, in the numerous sections that refer to the application of fees, she hopes and believes they will be nominal.
But there will be fees associated with commencing an action. There will be fees associated with registering at the registry. There will be fees associated with now registering at the land title office. There will be fees associated with filing an enforcement instruction.
In fact, when we look down at sub 45(d), we see three additional areas where the judgment creditor is going to have to provide money.
There is going to be a fee simply for giving the enforcement instruction, which the Attorney has pointed out may be a very straightforward document, but there will be a fee associated with that.
There will be a written proposal of an agreement for payment of the officer’s fees and estimated expenses. That speaks to another cost that will be borne by the judgment creditor. Then there is, in sub (d)(iii), the requirement to provide security in a form and an amount that is satisfactory to the officer. So there are three additional areas where the judgment creditor is obliged to provide money.
Can I ask this: what happens if a judgment creditor doesn’t have the means to do that?
Hon. N. Sharma: The whole regime is premised on a balancing of principles, and one is accessibility and ability of the creditor to have more options and the ability to collect. As I’ve mentioned many times in the discussion we’ve had about the drive to make sure that the fees are low and accessible, that’s a commitment that I’ve made, I think, on the record multiple times. It’s also one that’s in the legislation in terms of it saying “the prescribed fee for giving an enforcement instruction.”
Whether or not and what amount we prescribe a fee, I think, is going to be important. I’ve talked a lot — about the principle that we follow about accessibility. Under subsection (ii), the flexibility in there is “a written proposal of an arrangement for the payment of the officer’s fees.” This would be an arrangement that, probably for most purposes, would end up being just recoverable from the debtor once the property is seized and sold or whatever happens to it. There’s that ability to pay off those fees.
And security — subsection (iii) — can be in the form of many different things. It doesn’t have to be in the form of a payment or money and probably, likely, wouldn’t be. It’s a matter of risk management and appropriation of risk in terms of what happens. We think we struck the right balance with those considerations.
M. de Jong: Well, I’ll take a bit of issue with one thing the minister said. I don’t doubt that this is the hope. But security is going to be money.
I mean, we know that the folks that do this work do an estimate of what it’s going to cost and how many people they’re going to need. Do they have to store goods? They’re going to say: “Oh, we’re not assuming that risk.” So to the judgement creditor, they say…. And this….
In even seizing a vehicle, very quickly, it adds up to in excess of $1,000. I think that the minister knows that, not from her personal experiences but professional experiences. The costs associated with this grow quickly, and yes, ultimately, they are costs that can be passed on to the judgment debtor.
But my point and my actual question was: given the collective nature of the fees, the security, what happens when a judgment creditor is confronted by the request? It says: “Okay, you’ve got all these fees you’ve paid, and you’ve got to pay one more.”
I think my costs are going to be, as the civil enforcement officer and my team, as follows, and I need to be sure that you can cover that. Whether that’s a deposit on a credit card or whatever that security is, that ties up capital.
Oh, and by the way, we have to store the goods we’re seizing. We have to send out people to do that. We need to rent the trucks. We need to do all of that, and we need security from you in the amount of…. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration that it’s going to be thousands of dollars or $1,000, depending on what the….
What happens when the judgment creditor, after doing all the work, says: “Well, I can’t do that. I don’t have that”? What happens then?
Hon. N. Sharma: I appreciate this discussion because it helps us clarify what happens in a situation where somebody is really unable and in need of this service. I want to kind of talk through that in some detail — about how it’s designed to be low barrier. I mentioned before that the way this would be handled is through service delivery contracts with the providers, so there’s an ability for us to have that discussion at that point.
I’ll start with this idea of somebody who is, like: “I have nothing, and I really want to go after the money. Is this provision under subsection (d) going be a barrier for me to do that?” The prescribed fee, as I mentioned before, will be set to be considered a nominal amount to get. That would be the upfront money that the person would likely have to pay. Right?
The other two provisions are risk management, really. The first one is their written proposal and arrangement. Likely that proposal would say: “There’s no money up front, but we’ll make a deal that once we collect….” I think the scenario that the member provided was if there is a storage of an asset. If we’re at the stage of a storage of an asset fee, then we know we have an asset that’s going to be sold and able to recover any of the fees that were associated with that storage.
The member brought up the security component. I just want to say, again, that the security does not have to be in the form of money. There could be many scenarios where it’s a registered interest in some other form of property or something that helps to mitigate the risk taken on by the enforcement officer. Generally speaking, it could be that the only actual upfront cost is that prescribed fee, which, if prescribed, would be nominal in the sense of what it is.
The Chair: Member, we’ll give you an opportunity to get another question on record and then pick it up after lunch. How’s that?
M. de Jong: I’ll make a brief reply, which I think will be my last submission on this point before we go to section 54 if we want to do that before the break and pass the other sections leading up to section 54.
I will only say this. I understand the minister’s optimism with how the construct will work. The bottom line, though, is the discretionary authority for setting security is left entirely with the enforcement officers.
My experience tells me that — I am less optimistic — they won’t simply say: “We need X number of dollars before we are prepared to engage in certain collection-type activities.” I’m not sure there’s any authority created beyond that which is set out here that could constrain the folks in that regard. If that happens, the judgment creditor is left with a hollow instrument. If they aren’t able to satisfy these requirements…. They have got their judgment, they’ve registered it, they’ve got to this point and now it is unenforceable.
I hope the minister is right. I am concerned that in practice, she may not be.
Clauses 45 to 53 inclusive approved.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.