Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 352
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2023
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: K. Paddon.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is the consul general of the United States, Mr. James DeHart. Accompanying him is Ana Himelic, a political economic officer at the consulate.
Consul General DeHart is here on his first official visit to Victoria. Later this morning the Minister of State for Trade and I will meet with him. This afternoon he will have lunch with you, Mr. Speaker. Following that, he will meet with the Minister of Finance and then Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.
Would the House please make both our guests feel very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 3), 2023
Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023. This bill amends the following statutes: Supreme Court Act, Low Carbon Fuels Act, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, Residential Tenancy Act, North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act, Local Government Act.
This bill also makes consequential amendments to a number of other statutes. I will be pleased to elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
MARY MILLER
M. Bernier: Mary Miller was born April 30, 1939, in Doe River area just north of Rolla, British Columbia, a small farming community, and she spent pretty much her entire life there. She was one of the more passionate people that I ever had the pleasure of meeting, and it came especially with her love and support for the region and for the agricultural sector that helped develop and grow the Peace region.
When I first was elected as MLA for Peace River South, one of the very first people to contact me and to meet with me was Mary, with her husband John, who sadly passed away in 2018. Mary sat across from me, she looked me in the eye, and she said to me: “Now that you represent me, you’d better be representing the farmers and ranchers in this area, the same people that helped build this beautiful part of the province.”
As you can guess, Mary never shied away from expressing her opinions and standing up for what she believed in.
Mary had a long career as a school teacher in Rolla and was a member of the Rolla Women’s Institute for her entire life. It’s probably safe to say that there’s no one who didn’t know Mary in that region because of her involvement and support of always making sure people knew about Rolla and the people who founded that area, like Mary herself.
After retirement, Mary’s next passion turned to her grandkids, helping out and supporting them in all of their sporting activities. Another passion of Mary’s, though, was her constant battle with the oil and gas sector, reminding them always that they had to respect the land that the farmers use. But it was always a bit of a joke within her family, considering all four of her sons worked in the oil and gas sector.
On September 22, 2023, Mary sadly passed away, leaving a huge hole in her family and in our community. A celebration of Mary’s life will be held this Saturday at 2 p.m. in the Rolla Hall.
I will always cherish all of my time that I’ve spent with Mary, our meetings and our little battles, and I send condolences to her family and her friends.
Mary was a force, and she will always be remembered.
INCLUSIVE ACCESS TO
WASHROOM
FACILITIES
G. Chow: Today is Halloween. I’m not going to speak about something scary but something that’s interesting and important. I’m going to talk about washrooms, particularly a washroom in this building, the Legislative Assembly.
Do you know that in the 1990s, there wasn’t a single women’s washroom on the same floor as this chamber? There were four washrooms on this floor, but they were all for men.
Women demanded change, and management finally relented. One men’s room was converted to women’s use by shutting down the water sprinkler to the urinals. Plastic flowers were still in vogue then, so they put them in the urinals to pretty them up. As dust started to gather on the flowers and the plastic faded with time, the flowers became unsightly. A more permanent and practical solution was implemented by building a full-height wooden enclosure around the urinals. This was what I saw when Michelle Mungall, former MLA for Nelson-Creston, took me for a tour of the women’s washroom in the Legislature back in 2017 when I first got elected.
One memorable incident Michelle told me was that one MLA dropped her cell phone, and it ended up in the urinal despite having the wooden enclosure, because the enclosure has a gap on the bottom where it meets the floor. However, on that tour, Michelle didn’t show me the location of the men’s room on this floor so then, when former Premier Christy Clark called a division vote, I almost missed it because I was in the men’s room on the third floor.
Two weeks ago the B.C. building services visited the Legislature and met with MLAs. Among other topics, they discussed the need for better washroom facilities for construction workers. They pointed out: “An additional consequential benefit of providing improved washroom facilities in construction is an increased level of support for underrepresented groups who might be considering construction trades as a vocation.”
Given my experience in washrooms, I wholeheartedly agree.
PAPER PLANES CAFÉ AND
INCLUSIVE EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
T. Wat: I rise today to share a truly heartwarming experience I had yesterday, which is a shining example of the spirit of inclusion and innovation in our great province.
On October 30, I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of Paper Planes Café at YVR airport in Richmond in my riding. This café is not just another addition to one of Canada’s major airports. It is a ground-breaking initiative that deserves recognition and celebration. Paper Planes Café is born out of a partnership with the Pacific Autism Family Network. It showcases the power of collaboration and the commitment to creating opportunities for everyone in our community regardless of their abilities.
Paper Planes Café is a unique approach to employment and training. Individuals with diverse abilities are provided with valuable work experience and paid a living wage while undergoing a six-month training period. This period serves as a launching pad, allowing PAFN to collaborate with various companies in the community to find these individuals suitable and fulfilling employment.
In a world that is often marked by barriers and limitations, this initiative symbolizes progress, unity and the limitless potential of every individual. It stands as a pioneer, not just at YVR airport but as the first of its kind in any Canadian airport.
As British Columbians, we must always work to ensure that no one is left behind and that everyone has the opportunity to shine in their own unique way. I see how Paper Planes Café helps achieve this. I hope this example inspires all to do better and do more for inclusivity in our communities.
I look forward to witnessing the positive impact Paper Planes Café will have on the lives of the people it serves and the broader community.
HALLOWEEN PUMPKIN EVENT AND
PARKGATE PLAZA IN NORTH
VANCOUVER
S. Chant: I will begin by acknowledging that I’m speaking from the unceded territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Esquimalt and the Songhees.
I work, live and learn in my beautiful riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, situated in the unceded territory of the Coast Salish, specifically the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations.
When I think of Halloween, I think of pumpkins that become wonderful orange jack-o’-lanterns. This past Sunday, I had the joy of distributing small pumpkins to young and old people who were travelling through the plaza at Parkgate mall.
These people were on a variety of quests, all of which could be met within walking distance of their homes. Some were attending the North Van rec centre where there were drop-in sports such as badminton and pickleball, access to a fitness gym and parties being attended by excited kids in costumes. Others came out of the library, one school-aged girl with so many books that she couldn’t carry them on her own. She proudly pointed out the ones she had chosen for her little sister at home.
There were seniors making their way home with today’s groceries to nearby condominiums or to the co-op, a Ukrainian grandmother who spoke very limited English with two grandchildren who chattered fluently, a father and son duo that arrived from Hong Kong six months ago and were enchanted by getting free pumpkins.
It was a lovely day, and the nearby coffee shop had customers at all the outdoor tables, enjoying the crisp autumn sun and catching up on the news of the day or the week.
As I watched kids and their parents choosing the right pumpkin and adding decorations if they wished, I realized that I felt an overwhelming gratitude that Parkgate, like many other communities in North Vancouver and British Columbia, has created a safe, accessible and welcoming intergenerational space for children to play, families to gather and seniors to meet, a place where everyone is welcome, always.
Have a safe and happy Halloween.
ANTI-SEMITISM AND SUPPORT FOR
JEWISH
COMMUNITY
M. Lee: Two weeks ago, across party lines, we made speeches in this House to condemn Hamas for their barbaric and violent terrorist crimes against humanity on October 7.
Throughout the past three weeks, members of the Jewish community have expressed to me their fears and how they feel betrayed and very alone in the world right now. Thankfully, many people with platforms, including elected representatives, have gone out of their way to show them that they are not alone.
I want to recognize one member in particular, across the aisle, the Minister of Advanced Education, for her unwavering support for Israel and the burden that she carries, as I acknowledged last Saturday at Beth Israel synagogue in Vancouver.
I’ve seen the heinous comments, threats and bullying online that she and others have received. It’s why, no matter our partisan stripes, we must all loudly stand behind those who use this platform for good and show the Jewish community that they are not alone, because sadly, those threats are not just on social media and in MLA inboxes.
I’m deeply troubled by what I’ve seen recently in schools, on university and college campuses and on B.C. streets. Hate and anti-Semitism is either being promoted or allowed to fester without challenge.
Now is the time to push back. Now is the time to support our Jewish friends and neighbours. We must stand with them and condemn incitement of violence in the rallies that we continue to see in Vancouver and ensure that the criminal code provisions, including against both promotion of hatred and anti-Semitism, are enforced.
The Jewish community has given us so much in this province. We owe it to them and to our society to do all we can to stamp out this hate and anti-Semitism and ensure that no Jewish child is afraid of going to school, no Jewish student is afraid of attending UBC and no Jewish person anywhere in this province feels unsafe or unwelcome.
Anything less is a failure in our responsibilities as elected representatives in our province.
HALLOWEEN CELEBRATIONS AND
IMPORTANCE OF
PLAY
B. Anderson: First of all, I would like to wish everyone in British Columbia a very happy Halloween.
As Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism, my role is to encourage exploration, learning and play in a variety of forms. All of us in this room would agree that play is necessary, an important aspect of cognitive, physical and emotional development for children. We encourage children to play.
For many adults, play may be perceived as silly, unproductive and time-consuming. Some may even discourage adults from playing.
For many adults, we can feel boxed in by the expectations and pressures of adulthood, but let’s not take ourselves too seriously. There are a number of benefits to play for adults, including improved stress management and an improvement in our well-being. Play offers a reprieve from the chaos and challenges to connect us with a key part of ourselves that gets lost in the responsibility of adulthood.
People play in different ways. Karaoke sounds like a blast to one person but a nightmare to another.
Celebrating Halloween is a form of play. So for everyone in British Columbia celebrating Halloween this year, I hope the experience is safe, sparks joy and improves your overall well-being.
I would like to thank my colleagues who dressed up as Barbie this year for the best holiday of the year and our Premier for giving me his blessing to organize the group caucus Halloween costume again this year, essentially encouraging play. You know what they say. MLAs that play together, stay together.
Across British Columbia, on this Halloween, let’s all embrace play and embark on the joyful adventure together that celebrates creativity, diversity and inclusion.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX
AND HOME HEATING
COSTS
K. Falcon: Life has never been more expensive than under this NDP Premier.
While the NDP runs record-setting inflationary deficits, family budgets are tighter than ever. People are stretched thin, juggling record-high housing, food and fuel costs. They deserve a break. Yet instead of providing relief, this Premier is on track to balloon the carbon tax from $30 a tonne in 2017, when they formed government, to a crippling $170 a tonne by the end of this decade.
My question to the Premier is straightforward. Will the Premier confirm his plans to hike the carbon tax to $170 a tonne, as laid out in his own budget?
Hon. D. Eby: I want to thank the member for Nelson-Creston for her two-minute statement and for help with our Halloween costume this year.
I have to admit I was puzzled. What is the Leader of the Opposition dressed as this year? It turns out he is dressed as a weathervane.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Shhh. Members, every member must refrain from name-calling, please.
Hon. D. Eby: It’s hard to imagine that the same member who rolled out his announcement this morning rolling back the carbon tax is the same person that said: “I am actually very proud of the leadership role we’ve taken on the carbon tax. I think that if you accept that climate change is an issue, then pricing carbon is absolutely the right way to deal with it.”
Obviously, the member is abandoning that position. I look forward to all the details of his position.
The member is well aware of the fact that pricing carbon is the right way to deal with climate change. He has just lost the courage of his convictions.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Let’s be really clear about something here. It’s this Premier who has flip-flopped on his promise of affordability. I would remind the Premier that it was his NDP that campaigned against the carbon tax when it was introduced at $10 a tonne, and then Mr. Premier did a double backflip to actually now say that they want to increase it to $170 a tonne.
The fact of the matter is that in 2012, while I was Finance Minister, I froze the carbon tax at $30 a tonne. Subsequent B.C. Liberal governments maintained that freeze until 2017, when the NDP formed government.
What has happened since then? Well, they’ve more than doubled the carbon tax. The Premier’s own budget documents show that he plans to triple the carbon tax on home heating, costing homeowners nearly $900 a year.
My question to the Premier: after already dramatically jacking up this tax, will the Premier confirm that his next move is to more than triple the carbon tax on home heating?
Hon. D. Eby: The member — how quickly he forgets when he was Finance Minister. When they sat on this side of the House, a family that earned $100,000 used to pay $7,473 in taxes. They now pay $4,948. That’s a 34 percent net reduction. Families that earn $80,000 a year, a 56 percent net reduction.
The member called removing the tolls a profound public policy mistake. If he gets back on this side of the House, you know what he’s going to do? He’s going to reverse what he called a mistake. He’s going to put the tolls back on the bridge.
It’ll be the same guy that increased the MSP on families.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, Shhh.
Members, please calm down.
Hon. D. Eby: Maybe he’ll reverse himself on that, too.
But what I can’t tell is what this member stands for anymore. He said he supported the Surrey police transition. Conservatives said they were against it. He reversed his position.
He voted for the short-term rental legislation. Conservatives said they were against it. Then he voted against it too.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: He said he supported harm reduction. The Conservatives said they were against it. He reversed himself again.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please.
Hon. D. Eby: One day his caucus says he supports harm reduction. The next day they say he doesn’t.
He spent 15 years saying he was proud of the carbon tax, and today he’s not.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.
K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you what leadership looks like. It looks like….
This is the best part.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
K. Falcon: You haven’t heard the best part yet. Hold your applause for just a few seconds longer.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please.
K. Falcon: I’ll tell you what leadership looks like, Mr. Speaker. It looks like the Premier of Saskatchewan, who’s fighting for affordability, a Premier who is standing for working people. No carbon tax on home heating. That’s real leadership.
British Columbians cannot afford to pay even more in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Rather than adopting sensible, pragmatic solutions, this Premier doubles down on yearly hikes that will hammer the final nails in the coffins of affordability here in British Columbia.
My question to the Premier is a straightforward one. Why won’t this Premier give British Columbians a break from his punishing carbon tax grab?
Hon. D. Eby: I guess the theme of the past couple of weeks has been Liberal leaders facing difficult poll results flip-flopping on the carbon tax.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the member is under a lot of pressure from the Conservative Party, but standing up, after the summer we had, for British Columbia to be a leader on climate change is an important thing. His abandonment of that under pressure is exactly what’s going to happen if he gets on this side of the House. He will go after British Columbians again for every little MSP fee and every little toll so he can give tax cuts to the big corporations and the wealthy 2 percent, who don’t need the help.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: You know how I know? Because he’s done it before. Now he has the nerve to stand up on that side of the House and say that he’s on the side of families, when we’re the side that cut taxes for families by up to 50 percent. Give me a break.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: The province needs principled leadership. It’s hard to stand strong. But I encourage the member to visit with the member that used to sit here in 2012, because at least he knew what he stood for. I have no idea what that man stands for.
T. Stone: Yeah, well, other Premiers are standing up, and they’re fighting for their citizens. Take Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario. Here in British Columbia, we have a Premier who sticks his head in the sand and isn’t standing up and doing anything to drive affordability for British Columbia. That’s the issue.
Let’s make no mistake about it. This is a provincial carbon tax that this Premier controls, period. In B.C., middle-class families pay the most in net carbon tax anywhere in the country.
But it gets worse. Government documents confirm that the NDP’s CleanBC plan will actually shrink the provincial economy by $28 billion, also shrinking family paycheques to the tune of $11,000 per household per year, a cost which this Premier and this government have not shared with British Columbians.
What people want is a Premier who stands up and fights for them, instead of this Premier who refuses to do so. The Premier could start today by removing the NDP’s carbon tax on home heating, plain and simple.
Will the Premier do that today?
Hon. J. Osborne: We know that for 15 years, the B.C. United has enthusiastically supported the carbon tax. In fact, we’ve heard the Leader of the Opposition call it his proudest moment yet.
Now he wants to question this. He wants to abandon the principles. He wants to question whether the climate crisis is costing people and businesses.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. J. Osborne: Instead of helping people do the right thing to fight climate change, to make it more affordable to do so, he wants to walk back on climate action.
So what are they going to cut? Are they going to cut the $900 that families are receiving each year through the climate action tax credit? Are they going to cut the millions of dollars of carbon tax that are invested back into industry to reduce emissions and increase competitiveness?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Osborne: Are they going to cut the rebates for heat pumps, for electric vehicles, for better doors and windows, for better insulation for people to make it more affordable to fight the devastating impacts of climate change?
Our government is going to continue to make progress on our climate targets while reducing costs for people. That’s what British Columbians expect of this government, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.
Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: The saddest part of all of this is that B.C. used to be a climate leader. This government has actually relinquished British Columbia’s leadership role on the world stage. When you look at the results, and the results are really what matter, emissions are going up. British Columbia is now the least affordable jurisdiction in all of Canada. Terrible results.
Again, this is a reality. The NDP’s CleanBC plan has become the KillBC plan, plain and simple. It’s going to kill jobs, it’s going to kill paycheques, and it’s going to kill any hope of affordability in this province for an entire generation. The government’s own numbers — these are the government’s documents — admit that their policies are going to shrink the economy by $28 billion and set real family incomes back a decade to the tune of $11,000 per family per year.
That said, there’s an opportunity today to provide relief on home heating and to put B.C. on a level playing field with the rest of Canada. Again to the Premier, a very simple question.
Will the Premier stand up, show one iota of leadership and remove the provincial carbon tax on home heating?
Hon. G. Heyman: People who know me know that I do my best to stay fit. But even I know that doing repeated backflips is just dangerous for your health.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s continue with the question period.
The minister has the floor.
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I’m glad I’m providing some entertainment for the opposition, but their claims that the Business Council has a credible analysis of CleanBC is neither correct nor funny.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: The Opposition House Leader has raised this twice now, as a bit of a throwaway in question. Let me just say that credible economists as recently as Monday in Business in Vancouver have pointed out the flaws in BCBC’s analysis.
They took numbers from documents on a government website…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: …completely out of context. The context is….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’d be happy to explain it to the opposition, if they’d care to listen.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members in the opposition, you’re wasting your own time. You’re losing your own time.
The minister will continue.
Hon. G. Heyman: The comparison in the CleanBC documents were of the CleanBC plan against no climate plan whatsoever, which is what existed in 2017, prior to a change in government.
If this House is serious about climate action, this House and the opposition need to realize that not only do we need to lower emissions, not only do we need a climate plan, but we cannot afford to miss the economic opportunities in clean energy and clean technology, none of which was factored into the statistics that BCBC offered British Columbians. It’s misleading, it’s wrong, and it’s not helpful.
SPOTTED OWL HABITAT PROTECTION
AND SPECIES-AT-RISK
LEGISLATION
S. Furstenau: If this House was serious about climate action, this government would take the $30-a-tonne cap on the climate pricing off of the biggest polluter in this province, which is LNG Canada, and return that money to people who need to make it.
The other thing this government has not been serious about is species at risk. The spotted owl is a symbol of B.C.’s failure to protect at-risk wildlife. Only one wild-born spotted owl remains in a forest in B.C., the only place in Canada where this species has ever been found.
The federal government was prepared to issue a rare emergency order under Canada’s Species at Risk Act to protect the spotted owl’s critical habitat. In a cruel twist, it turns out that the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and his staff lobbied intently to dissuade the federal cabinet from issuing a spotted owl emergency order.
A B.C. cabinet minister briefing document obtained under freedom of information states that the emergency order would have “significant impacts on forest sector jobs and provincial revenue, and Ottawa should back away from issuing the order, even when a species is at risk of extirpation.”
My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. How is arguing against protecting habitat for the last spotted owl considered stewardship?
Hon. N. Cullen: I thank my colleague for her question. Promoting the recovery and reintroduction of northern spotted owls into British Columbia is a key priority for our government. That’s why we took three key, important steps.
First, in partnership with First Nations and the federal government, we established the world’s first-ever captive breeding program for spotted owls. Currently there are 31 owls that exist at the breeding centre.
Second, we protected more than 280,000 hectares of critical old-growth habitat that we agreed upon with the federal government and First Nations as necessary for at least 150 breeding pairs of spotted owl. We know that the limitations right now on the reintroduction of spotted owl is not habitat, given the vast size. That is close to 700 Stanley Parks of old-growth forest.
Lastly is the reintroduction of those spotted owls. We had introduction just last year, and we have, with great humility and determination, introduced more spotted owls.
We need the humility to understand that this is the first time this has ever been done in the world. We need the determination to keep doing it, with our partners, to make sure that owls are reintroduced successfully and breed in the wild on their own, with the necessary habitat protection which we’ve set aside.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Let’s be clear that what this province considers to be spotted owl habitat are areas that have been logged, that continue to be logged, and areas that are used for target practice, which I do not think contributes to the success of spotted owl reintroduction.
Of the three owls that were introduced by this captive breeding program, two of them died, and a third was found injured and had to return home. This government continues to approve logging in old-growth habitat that spotted owl would need to survive. It’s evident that the status quo approach is not working.
This government promised to bring in endangered species legislation. They’ve failed to deliver. While they hum and haw, the list of at-risk species in the province grows, and iconic species blink out.
My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. Will the minister ensure that we see species-at-risk legislation before the next election?
Hon. N. Cullen: Let me start with the end of my friend’s question.
She would look forward, as we all have, as we’ve been building the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework with partners, particularly First Nations partners, who have been working with us every step of the way to introduce a framework as the first phase. We expect that quite soon.
This will be an important structure for us in dealing with the serious question of species at risk and, of course, the habitat that needs to be protected in order to allow those species to thrive once again in British Columbia.
I would say, however, that I contend greatly with the 280,000 hectares of old-growth habitat that have been set aside. This was agreed to jointly between ourselves, Canada and First Nations as the critical habitat that would allow, as I said, 150 breeding pairs to exist. I have faith in our partnerships with the Spuzzum First Nation and Canada in the determination of that old-growth habitat, not described as the member did. I think that is incorrect.
I think it is important to remain determined, to remain hopeful and focused on the habitat required to allow these species to be reintroduced successfully so that we can all celebrate their critical return to our province.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO FEDERAL
CARBON TAX CHANGES FOR
HOME HEATING
B. Banman: The Conservative Party of British Columbia has been straight up with British Columbians about where we stand on the carbon tax. When we form government, we’re going to axe the carbon tax to make life more affordable for everyday British Columbians.
On the other hand, the B.C. United liberals have taken a different approach. They continue to flip-flop themselves into obscurity on this and other issues. Yesterday they’re supporting it. Today they’re cancelling it. Tomorrow — well, I guess they’ll wait for a poll or see what we, the Conservative Party, will do.
At least this NDP government is clear with voters. They’re clear with voters. They want the average British Columbian to suffer, to pay more and to go without. This NDP government refuses to stand up for everyday, hard-working British Columbians, like blue-collar workers who can’t afford the NDP carbon tax, health care heroes who have chosen not to take a shot, and homeowners who are watching this government rip away their property rights.
Interjections.
B. Banman: I’ve got all day.
A question to this NDP Premier: when he found out that Ottawa was forcing this unfair double standard on British Columbians, why did he choose to cower instead of pushing back? Why is it that under this NDP government, British Columbians always pay more to get less, while eastern Canadians are getting a badly needed break?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.
Let’s just go back to yesterday for one brief moment because I want to acknowledge again his acknowledgment that climate change is real. But I do want to note that he did stop short of acknowledging the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity like carbon emissions.
The leader of the Conservatives, as we know, was ejected from the B.C. United caucus for suggesting that carbon emissions were not the cause of climate change. Today I want to give the member an opportunity to state not only that climate change is happening but that it is caused by human activity.
B. Banman: I want to thank the minister for deflecting the question.
You know, it takes courage to stand for something and to lead — something the leader of the B.C. United liberals is sorely lacking, I will add.
This NDP Premier has no problem bullying the little guy who can’t fight back: health care workers, police officers, homeowners and even municipal voters and governments. This NDP Premier refuses to stand up to the bigger guy. He only wants to punch down. It’s no wonder British Columbians are yet again getting the short end of the stick from Ottawa and this government.
My question to the NDP Premier: why won’t this Premier stand up to Justin Trudeau on the carbon tax? Why won’t he fight and demand equality and deliver it to British Columbians, who are desperately needing a break?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I noticed that he declined to answer my question, but we’ll let that go for now.
Again, I just want to remind him that the carbon tax is something that has been shown by experts around the world as one of the most efficient and effective means of reducing emissions. So we’re going to continue this work here in British Columbia, but we’re going to do it with a people focus.
That means supporting people in the choices to make that switch from fossil fuel emissions into low-emission technologies by supporting them in their pocketbook. We’re going to continue to provide rebates for electric vehicles, for heat pumps, for doors, for windows, for insulation, for the things that make the cost of energy, their home heating bills, more affordable.
But we’re not going to let it go that the federal government has made a decision about Atlantic Canada. We’re going to continue to push hard on the federal government to do what’s right for all Canadians, and that is to help us make it more affordable for British Columbians to make the choices we know they want to make. We’re not going to stop this work no matter what the member opposite has to say.
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX
AND HOME HEATING
COSTS
E. Ross: Everybody on this side of the House, including past members of the B.C. United party, supported the carbon tax in 2008. Previous members that are now part of the Fourth Party voted seven times in favour of the carbon tax.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh.
E. Ross: And I can see why. It was never meant to be a tax grab like what it is under the NDP government right now. From 2008 to 2017, it produced results. Emissions went down in B.C.
Emissions are going up under the NDP. And news flash: it’s going to go even higher because natural gas is going to burn natural gas to produce electricity.
It’s going to go higher. Admit it. In the meantime, British Columbians are suffering through the worst affordability crisis in B.C.’s history.
On the weekend, seven cold-weather records were shattered, and what’s the Premier’s response? More carbon tax, making it too expensive for people to heat their homes. A new report shows heating bills are gutting family budgets, forcing one in seven households to make the cruel choice between warmth and necessities like food and medicine.
Will the Premier finally admit that the brutal choices the NDP has chosen are forcing families to suffer even more, or will he continue to leave them out in the cold to pad his budget with billions more in carbon tax revenue?
Hon. J. Osborne: There’s one thing that the opposition has right: people and families are feeling the sting of high inflation, and people need support. But how you do it and whom you do it for matters. Let’s remember this is the government…. It’s this government. We reversed the opposition’s tax breaks for those at the top and used that money to reduce the cost for people.
When he was on this side of the House, the Leader of the Opposition hiked ICBC rates by 11 percent. But under our government, drivers have received an average of $420 in rebates and a saving of $500 a year on their rates.
When the opposition was on this side of the House, not only did they keep MSP premiums, but they raised them 10 percent, forcing people who make $50,000 to pay the same as people making $500,000. That’s unfair, and we ended it.
Unlike the opposition, which raises fees on people, we will continue to find ways to support people, to help them with the cost, because we know that’s how we build a strong province for everybody.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.
E. Ross: Since 2017, taxes have risen for British Columbians by $20 billion. You’re making life tougher with your increased taxes, and now you purport to make it easier by giving some back, a little bit. Well, let’s talk about making life easier for the 2 percent of the friends of this House — LNG Canada was given the largest PST tax break in B.C. history.
All we’re asking is to give citizens of B.C. the same break. They were given a break on the carbon tax at 30 bucks a tonne, which is something that this side of the House, when we were in government, had frozen because we realized it meant something good for the people of British Columbia.
What do we see with this NDP government? “Let’s crank it up. In the affordability crisis, let’s make it worse for British Columbians.”
Interjection.
E. Ross: Except for big corporations. Talk about it being Halloween. Jeez. British Columbians are drowning in taxes from this NDP government. While people in other provinces catch a break, this Premier only piles on more taxes.
The Premier’s budget reveals a plan to ratchet up the carbon tax, year after year, tripling the carbon tax. Don’t be fooled. The NDP have a plan to gut family incomes by…
Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.
E. Ross: …a staggering $11,000 annually.
Why is the Premier making life increasingly unaffordable for British Columbians through his relentless carbon tax hikes?
Hon. R. Kahlon: My colleagues have already shared some of the initiatives that we’re doing to ensure that people have more money in their pockets during these really challenging times.
What we’ve heard, not only today but throughout this session, is this consistent flip-flopping from the Leader of the Opposition: when it comes to the Surrey police transition, saying something in the South Asian media and then coming here and doing something different. Short-Term legislation…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. R. Kahlon: …voting in favour of it; then the Conservatives vote against it, and then flip-flopping.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: When it comes to harm reduction….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Members, please.
Hon. R. Kahlon: When it comes to harm reduction, we saw the same thing. When it comes to safe consumption sites, we saw them flip-flopping after the Conservatives did something else. I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of when he had very principled positions when it comes to the carbon tax.
In 2012, this is what he had to say. “I think cancelling the carbon tax…. My personal opinion is that it would be a terrible mistake.” I think that people believe that climate change is an issue…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. R. Kahlon: …and that warming of the planet is an issue. The only sensible way to deal with that, I believe, is carbon pricing. That’s the only way you’re going to change behaviour.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, there’s more.
On the Voice of B.C.…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s okay to let the minister answer. It’s okay.
Hon. R. Kahlon: On the Voice of B.C., he said: “I really believe that if you’re genuinely concerned about climate change and you genuinely want to do something about it, pricing carbon is absolutely the right thing to do.”
He didn’t end there. He went on, with another reporter, to say: “We knew it wasn’t going to be particularly popular. But I think in politics, at some point, you have to decide whether you’re going to try to do the right thing or the easy thing.”
I don’t know what the B.C. United party leader believes anymore, but I know one thing. He’ll do anything to get elected.
[End of question period.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question period is over.
The Chair would like to encourage all sides, when they’re asking a question or answering, to be brief, as much as you can. Then we will have more time for questions. Thank you very much.
Question period is now over.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room. I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 29, Environmental Management Amendment Act.
In the third House, Committee C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 37 — CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
Deputy Speaker: The House will come to order. Take your Barbie conversations outside. Thank you.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that Bill 37 now be read a second time.
It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 37, the Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act, 2023.
The crime victim assistance program is a key component of the network of support for victims in our province. Its mandate is to support the recovery of victims, immediate family members and witnesses impacted by violent crime.
The benefits available through the crime victim assistance program include financial and other benefits that address a range of needs for those recovering from physical and psychological injuries — for example, medical expenses and counselling services. There are also benefits available to immediate family members when a crime results in the death of a victim — for example, funeral expenses.
The program is guided by the Crime Victim Assistance Act and two corresponding regulations. The act has not been amended since it was introduced in 2002, and there are now gaps and barriers to eligibility that impact the program’s ability to support those it was created to assist.
This bill eliminates barriers to eligibility experienced by grandparents and grandchildren, witnesses and those experiencing significant trauma in the immediate aftermath of crime through changes that reflect a more trauma-informed approach.
Grandparents and grandchildren are not currently eligible for benefits unless they were financially dependent on the victim. This is a significant barrier that often results in benefits being denied. The bill removes the required financial dependence and, going forward, will improve the responsiveness to the increasing number of multigenerational households in our province.
This change recognizes the vital role that grandparents play in supporting family systems and the significance of relationships between grandparents and grandchildren.
The current definition of “witness” in the legislation is very narrow and requires that a witness had a strong emotional attachment to the victim. This excludes a significant number of those who witness a violent crime, including in their communities. Removing the requirement that there was a strong emotional attachment to the victim, expanding the circumstances in which witnesses are eligible to apply and eliminating the need for a formal diagnosis of psychological harm will enable better support for witnesses of violent crime, going forward.
The current one-year limit for submitting an application to the crime victim assistance program presents a barrier to prospective applicants who are experiencing trauma or dealing with multiple challenges in the immediate aftermath of a violent crime. This legislation will increase the time limit from one year to two years, which is the time limit for civil claims in B.C. It reflects a more trauma-informed approach and aligns our province with other jurisdictions across the country who administer similar programs.
These amendments create flexibility to consider the long-term best interests of clients when pursuing the statutory obligation to recover costs from a judgment or settlement received as a result of a crime and the flexibility to consider, on a case-by-case basis, other circumstances where it may be appropriate to suspend financial benefits for a period of time.
The bill improves administrative processes by expanding support available for those who are physically or mentally incapable of making an application and don’t have a legal representative. The changes also clarify and modernize language in the statute, including references to gendered language.
These legislative amendments have been informed by engagement with a broad scope of partners, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners across the anti-violence sector. The ministry considered section 3 of the Declaration Act as well as UN declaration articles 19 and 22 in its approach to consultation.
This bill addresses significant barriers to eligibility. It improves the program’s trauma-informed approach and strengthens the support available to victims, their immediate family members and witnesses impacted by violent crime that may occur in our province.
I am aware of concerns that have been raised regarding the growing gap between the cost of benefit rates such as counselling services and the funding amount available through the crime victim assistance program for these services. We are actively examining these issues. This legislation enables our government to develop recommendations to address this issue, and it is my intention to propose regulatory amendments later this fall.
I think this is an important bill which will improve the situation and the ability to access benefits for people who have been victims of crime in our province, and I look forward to the following debate and comments from members.
K. Kirkpatrick: I rise today to speak to Bill 37, the Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act. This bill aims to improve the accessibility and delivery of benefits for victims of crime in British Columbia, removing barriers and recognizing the value of extended family.
Let me begin by saying that we recognize the need to provide more support and assistance to victims of crime, especially as serious crime has increased in B.C. in recent years. In B.C., services and people are available to help victims and those close to them with the emotional, physical and financial effects of crime, and we are proud of that.
This bill is fairly straightforward, so it does not require a long debate, from our perspective, but we will have some questions of government to make sure that the changes are balanced and reasonable.
When we look at any changes or expansions of services, we have to ensure also that the non-profits providing services on behalf of government are fully supported in order to be able to do so. We need to provide victims with emotional, financial and practical support for those who have experienced crime, helping them cope with the trauma and aftermath of victimization. Bill 37 purports to expand and clarify these services.
In examining the bill, we do have some reservations that lie with the implementation of funding of this bill. Now, while government claims that the legislation will make these critical services available to more people, we wonder how this can be achieved without increasing the budget for the crime victim assistance program. For two years, funding for CVAP has remained stagnant even as crime rates and violence have surged in our province.
So the minister can anticipate a number of questions, such as: how can we anticipate an expanded service delivery for victims of crime without increasing the program’s financial resources? How will the government guarantee the service quality and promptness when faced with heightened demand? And most importantly, how can they guarantee that victims of crime will not face long wait times, bureaucratic hurdles or inadequate support?
In January of 2022, there were approximately 1,217 people on a wait-list to access CVAP services. And if these changes expand access and not expand the funding and the capacity of those organizations delivering these services, what will happen with managing an already long wait-list? And are we sure that all those eligible for services are aware of what is available?
One of the services that victims of crime are eligible for under CVAP is counselling. These services are essential for helping victims cope with trauma and stress caused by crime. Right now, more than ever, we do have an appreciation of the value and the benefit of timely and experienced counselling for victims of crime, and having that counselling available sooner than later, not having to be on a long wait-list, is critical to help people deal with the trauma and what could be a worsened lifelong experience because they didn’t get early supports.
These services in respect to counselling from registered professionals are only available from registered professionals who are approved by CVAP. This means that victims of crime have limited options when it comes to choosing a counsellor who meets their needs and preferences, and it’s no secret that there’s a shortage of mental health professionals in our province. We also know that there are even fewer professionals who are actually approved by CVAP. This creates an additional barrier for victims of crime, who need timely and appropriate counselling services.
Compensation is also an issue for these counsellors, as the government rate is set so far below the market rate. The competition for counsellors and for their time is significant.
Crime victim assistance programs play a vital role in addressing the needs of victims, promoting justice and contributing to safer, more informed communities. The government must consider these issues and challenges and consult with victims of crime, service providers and stakeholders on how to improve the CVAP and ensure its sustainability. Additionally, we must ensure that the allocation of funds for CVAP are carried out in a transparent and accountable manner.
I do look forward to examining the details of this bill further in committee stage. I will, figuratively, take my seat.
A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you in the chair. I would prefer not to be joining via my computer screen; however, it’s the way it has to be today.
Happy to stand, or to sit, and respond to Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act here at second reading.
I think, just broadly, the Crime Victim Assistance Act is very limited in scope. Only some people are served by the program, and more support is needed. So we in the Third Party are celebrating the changes that are made by this act, and we agree that these changes are long overdue.
We appreciate the addition of grandparents and grandchildren to the expanded definition of family members, and we are appreciative that the definition of witness is also being expanded. However, we believe that the legislation needs to go further.
I’ve heard from many constituents who have shared their frustrations with the crime victim assistance program, where in our constituency office, we are dealing with these issues currently. Children who are victims of crime still have many barriers to accessing comprehensive services. If the victim of a crime is an adult, there are a number of supports that the CVAP is able to accommodate and provide, yet children who are victims of crime, under their families, are unable to access the same level of support.
I just recently wrote a letter to the minister, and I want to read it into the record here. I think that it’s a bit curious to me as to why these amendments to this legislation are coming forward without providing greater support for children who are victims of serious crimes. The government knows that these gaps exist in the legislation, so it’s inexplicable to me that the Minister of Solicitor General and Public Safety would stand to table amendments and still leave children outside the protection and supports that are provided by the crime victims services program.
These are the contents of my letter to the Solicitor General.
“I’m writing in response to concerns that have been raised with our office regarding the crime victim services program and the limitations that are preventing essential supports from being provided in a timely and effective manner. It seems particularly important to raise these concerns, considering that Bill 37, the Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act, was tabled earlier this session.” The one that we’re debating today.
“The CVSP exists with the intent to assist ‘victims, immediate family members and some witnesses in coping with the effects of violent crime. It provides financial benefits to help offset financial losses and assist in recovery.’
“While I wish to recognize the importance of this program, it feels necessary to raise specific concerns that have been brought to my attention to ensure that this service provides the meaningful and comprehensive support that victims of crime require. These specific concerns broadly relate to (1) supports for children and families and (2) access to services.
“With respect to…. Regarding supports for children and their families who are victims of crime, it has been made clear to our office that the CVSP is inadequately provisioned to support children and their families in the wake of crime. Below, I’ve identified several examples that outline apparent insufficiencies in the present system.
“The CVSP legislation does not cover family counselling. Family counselling can be an essential support to assist families and a child that was a victim of crime to navigate the recovery.
“Economic losses for immediate family members are not covered. When an adult experiences financial loss as an immediate consequence of a crime or in recovering from the effects of a crime, the CVSP will cover portions of those losses.
“For families that incur economic losses to support their child in the wake of a crime — an example is time off work — there are no supports provided.
“While an option exists to sue the offender, this is an additional step that can require the child to be involved in the proceedings. This may not be possible or may cause unnecessary distress for a child.
“Items that are purchased to allow immediate family members to support the child do not appear to be eligible for coverage. Items that would normally be covered for adults to ‘assist in recovery’ are not eligible for coverage if parents are using them to support their child.
“Compensation for counselling is very limited. Often the cost of obtaining appropriate practitioners that are specialized to work with children and address specific traumatic experiences far exceeds the cost covered by the CVSP.
“It should be noted here as well that any administrative costs associated with counsellors or psychologists are not covered, and these expenses can be significantly higher when they pertain to children.
“Regarding access to services, it seems self-evident that being able to access supports as needed is essential to effective recovery. Unnecessary delays and barriers to accessing more care more generally should therefore be avoided where possible.
“Two concerns that have been raised with our office regarding access to services follow. Coverage of many services occur through reimbursement and is not provided up front. Many services that are covered by the CVSP, such as counselling, are reimbursed eventually, but the individual is required to pay for those services up front. Frequently these up-front costs can be a substantial burden for individuals and act as a barrier to accessing services.
“Getting approval for services can be a lengthy process. Our office has been made aware of situations in which approval for services such as counselling has been delayed months. As acknowledged above, the CVSP plays an important role in helping victims of crime navigate their recovery. However, it is in recognizing the value of such a program that I feel obligated to raise concerns about the current limitations of the CVSP and push for a more comprehensive service that supports the diversity of individuals requiring support.”
That’s the end of my letter. I think that it is important that when the minister stands to speak to this bill, he explain why it is that these gaps remain, even after opening this bill for some amendments, and amendments that we broadly support. I think he needs to explain why it is that this bill is silent on those issues.
Further, I want to raise the point about how the funding model works, and access to funding, and the reimbursement model in particular. There is no doubt that this will have a disproportionate impact on those victims of crimes that cannot afford to pay for their services, their counselling services and other services, up front. And it is going to be increasingly unlikely for families that can marginally afford to pay for these services to go and get those services if they know that the money that they are putting out up front is not going to come back in a reasonable amount of time.
Indeed, if there’s no way for them to plan and there are several months in between the time that they submit their receipts for reimbursement and actually get the funds reimbursed, in the time that we are right now, where folks are struggling to just make ends meet and folks are struggling to pay the bills, this is going to be incredibly challenging for those families to take care…. I want to focus here specifically on their children.
However, this is a problem that appears to be more broadly applicable within this service. There has to be a better way to do this. I agree with the member of the opposition, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who noted…. Even as I expand, in my speech, the number of people that may be able to apply for these funds…. To expand the scope of this without expanding the budget, to think that you’re going to get better results stretching a budget that has already been deemed to be inappropriate or to lack the scale of the problem that we’re facing, the entire system just continues to get more stressed out.
I certainly hope that in Budget ’24, this minister gets to celebrate an increase in the crime victim services program funding, because otherwise, we’re going to do this good work by updating the legislation, but the actual victims of crimes in our province aren’t going to receive the benefit of that. The only benefit that would be deemed from that would be of the minister and the government to get to stand and claim that they made the legislative changes.
Without the funding, it’s not actually going to support or benefit the people who actually need it. We implore the government to come up with a different system than this reimbursement system, which really, really disproportionately impacts those who can least afford it. The most vulnerable, marginalized in our society are less likely to go and get those services if they know that this system is inefficient and doesn’t reimburse them in a prompt way.
I’m looking forward to hearing from the minister about the reasons why he left children out of these amendments. As well, there are some pretty serious questions that we have around section 6 of this bill. We’ll be having those conversations in the upcoming stages of the debate.
With that, I take my seat.
K. Paddon: It is an honour to rise today to talk about the Crime Victim Assistance Act, the amendments happening and being debated right now. I rise for a very specific purpose, not only to talk about what these amendments would mean, what this legislation would mean, but also to reflect back on the voices who contributed to it.
I know that there are so many of my colleagues here, so many of the team in PSSG, so many advocates, so many people and non-profits working the front line who carry the stories of the people who impacted these changes, who inform the work that we do when we talk about victims.
I had the experience…. It’s hard to classify what kind of experience it was — I guess the privilege and the experience of working as a victim support worker for several years, working as a caseworker. The stories that I heard there and how they would be impacted by these changes in this piece of legislation — I can see the direct line.
Now, that was many years ago. These changes, these updates, these improvements have been a long time coming. But I can’t help but think of the people I sat across from at a desk, hearing about the needs, helping them fill out applications for supports and services, helping to connect them with supports and services that are discussed in this act. I can’t help but remember sitting on a bench in a courtroom, as they waited, perhaps, to testify, as they waited for more information from the courts.
I want to really start the conversation here just acknowledging that it’s because of victims of crime, it’s because of families who have experienced incredible loss and trauma that inform the work that is being done. And I want to say thank you.
Nothing can ever turn the clock back enough to make it okay. But because people shared their experiences, because they were open about the gaps, because they continue to advocate not only for themselves but for others, that’s how we can make improvements. At a time where people are dealing with their own loss, their own trauma, their own experiences, that’s a gift, and not one we should be able to expect.
I just want to raise my hands to all of the victims and the victim advocates who helped bring us here and who will help make it better, make us better as we move forward.
I know that this is one of the steps that we’re taking to support victims. This is a step to close critical gaps in legislation. It’s seeking to ensure that British Columbians who have experienced crime, who are survivors, who may have witnessed crime or, maybe, are immediate family members of a victim — that they can receive the support that will assist in their healing journey and their recovery and to offset financial costs.
One of the things that I experienced as I walked alongside survivors and victims as a support worker is that it’s expensive to be traumatized. It’s expensive to be victimized. That is just insult to injury.
I appreciate that that can’t be resolved without actually just resolving the acts to begin with, without resolving the action to begin with, to not be creating more victims.
This closes some gaps. This takes us a step better. When I read the actions from this piece of legislation that’s before us, I hear the echoes of survivors and victims and their families of: “What about this?” And the gaps that…. “Why can’t I have this help? Why can’t I get this support?” Here I see that many of these gaps have been directly addressed.
When the amendments to the Crime Victim Assistance Act were introduced, it was explained that it was to expand eligibility and improve access for victim survivors and families of victims. The goal is to provide greater access to services like counselling.
Now, when I initially read it, and I read about grandparents and grandchildren…. I’m not going to lie. I don’t know…. As politicians, as members here in this House, we may have a lot of people who think a lot of different things about the humans who stand up here. But it caught me right in my chest because I distinctly remember a situation where I was supporting extended family of a victim — the parents and the child of a victim of gender-based violence, as a matter of fact. They had lost their life.
I remember there were gaps. It was hard to know what services I could get them because the grandparents of the child of the victim were absolutely not financially dependent on the victim. It changed the dynamic of what supports were available. This addresses that. If passed, grandparents and grandchildren…. We’re removing the requirement that they’re financially dependent on the victim in order to access. That’s a big change.
I remember these people. I remember we were sitting in a park. I remember they had just lost their child. They were trying to figure out how to provide what their grandchild needed. And it was a struggle.
So as we stand up in this House — not just politicians, not just wearing blazers, not just wearing pins and doing the formal things of Legislature…. As we stand up as human beings who have supported other human beings, I want…. Maybe with this piece of legislation more than quite a few recently, this one, I see the faces of the people and I hear the voices of the people.
In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, I’m also working closely with PSSG regarding the gender-based violence action plan. We know that, disproportionately, people accessing this service are dealing with issues of gender-based sexualized violence. Again, there is no undoing that, and there are not any services in the world that will make it okay. There are not any supports in the world that will undo it or bring you back to the time before.
Counselling is critical, and one of the things that I truly appreciate is not only the extension from one year to two years for people to be able to apply for benefits, but something that not everybody knows, which is that in cases of sexual assault, there’s no time limit there. I think that’s important to note — not a change but, we’ll say, related to the legislation in front of us.
I think that’s important to know, as in our offices or even just as human beings with the people we love, statistically, we probably love somebody who will be or has been the victim of sexual violence, gender-based violence. So I want that to be a fact that we all have embedded in our minds.
It extends the time limit for making an application for service from one year to two years, keeping in mind the exception for sexual assault, so that people can seek help when they’re ready. That really aligns with other factors, other pieces of timing. I think that that’s a really big win.
When something happens, we might not be ready to take those next steps. There’s a lot going on.
If passed, it will ensure that those who are traumatized by witnessing violent crime firsthand in their communities are eligible for support. It does that by expanding the definition of victim. I think that’s really important, because as it was — or as it is, I guess, before this is passed — the definition of witnesses that could access services is very narrow.
I understand why. We wanted to make sure that we were targeting, that we were giving supports to people who needed them the most. Absolutely. But as communities, if you witness a crime, especially certain kinds of crime, that will change you. That will change you, and it will change your relationships. Just in a related way, people, especially children who witness violence, who witness abuse, are more likely to later on perpetrate that and repeat what they’ve seen and what they’ve learned there. It creates a trauma.
I am so encouraged by the change that’s being proposed here that we’ll be debating. I appreciate my colleagues across the aisle and what they’ve said and the questions that they’ll ask. The way I see it is that every question asked is a question asked on behalf of a victim. I trust that that will be the spirit that it will be done in, because I know the depth of commitment we all have here for victims of crime and for their families.
One of the things that I think is really important to understand as well is that the crime victim assistance program is funded by the very people who cause harm to others. I think that that’s something that’s important for us to know as we’re considering the changes that are necessary in order to support people who are harmed, expanding the definition of people who qualify, because we understand that things have changed. We know better about certain aspects of what causes trauma and the damage that comes from that.
We haven’t significantly amended, as was mentioned, this act since 2002. Our understanding of gender-based violence, our understanding of sexualized violence and our understanding of the trauma and what happens as a result of that trauma, all of those things, have expanded. I am so very encouraged that we’re making sure that these amendments are made.
But it won’t stop there. We continue to hear from victims, from advocates, from families and from survivors. For this particular legislation, I know there was consultation done that was critical. It was done with the First Nations communities. It was done with Indigenous communities. Because we know that Indigenous women are overrepresented when it comes to gender-based violence and sexualized violence. We know this, so the consultations done are incredibly important.
This is one step, one piece of work, that is impactful. It echoes the advocacy that we have seen and we have heard. We have sat with these people on benches and at tables. I hear victim voices in this, and I am so grateful. It’s not the last piece of work we have to do.
Hon. G. Lore: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I appreciate the comments by the member for Chilliwack-Kent, recognizing and uplifting the voices that are behind the changes that you see in this legislation and that were the force behind moving towards amendments that we need to see.
It doesn’t come as a surprise, but this legislation is very important to me in this work. Part of my pathway to this place was through anti-violence work and working with survivors who need to be able to access supports, whose families often need to be able to access supports.
These are the first substantive amendments to the Crime Victim Assistance Act in over 20 years. We have learned a lot about trauma. We’ve learned a lot about the impacts of violence in those 20 years. These amendments are really crucial for changing that legislation to better fit what we know that people need.
One of the amendments that I’m especially happy to see in this legislation is the change to no longer require that family members are financially dependent on a victim of crime to access supports. I have trouble thinking of any other word than “cruel” behind that kind of qualification.
What does it say about how we value people and their wellness? To me, it says something about valuing people’s productivity, their income, their financial contribution. But we know that the impacts of violence and the impacts of crime ripple out to families and to communities. To remove that criteria so that people are able to access the support they need when they lose someone to crime, based on their emotional connection, based on the impact of the crime, not on their financial dependence on someone is, to me, a huge step forward.
I also think the change to increase the time limit is compassionate, but it also reflects what we know about the impacts of trauma and, sometimes, the time people need to be able to then seek help and support.
In my previous work, both in and outside this House, the call for these changes, the call for us collectively to recognize the limitations of the Crime Victim Assistance Act were loud and frequent from both survivors but also the community organizations that support them, police-based victim services and community-based victim services included. I think that we’re responding to that call and, as I said, responding to what we know about the impacts of trauma on people.
I also want to thank the minister for the amendment that is removing the need of witnesses to have close emotional ties to victims. As the member for Chilliwack-Kent says, witnessing a crime can change people, and being able to access the supports and services that can help them heal and address that trauma is important.
I also think we can’t understate the benefits, not just to survivors, but to their families, to their communities, to the province, of healing people’s trauma, of providing them with the supports they need. People aren’t able to work. They’re not able to parent. It can have real impacts on their ability to be members of their families and communities if they don’t get the support they need. By meeting people where they’re at, by doing better with the amendments to this legislation, the positive impacts will ripple out from there.
I heard the members from the opposite side and the Third Party speak, and I think we can recognize that the amendments to this legislation don’t solve all the challenges in and of themselves — and that they’re important steps. But I think we can also recognize what comes along with these amendments.
The day that these amendments were introduced, the member for Chilliwack-Kent and the Minister for Public Safety were also announcing the addition of sexual assault centres, places where survivors can access integrated services, integrated clinics, where they can receive emotional support and, in some cases, medical care, forensic exams, options for police reporting, all in one safe and accessible trauma-informed location.
This is a game-changer for survivors that removes the need for survivors to go to a hospital, where they may face barriers to accessing care but also, due to trauma, may not feel safe going, and then perhaps go to a police station to file a report if they wish.
The announcement of integrated spaces in Surrey, in Kamloops, in Prince George, in Vancouver and here in Victoria, alongside these amendments, speaks to the commitment to doing right by survivors, to delivering the services that they need and to the ongoing work before us.
There’s also additional work to do on this legislation, and I know that the Minister of Public Safety continues to look at the regulations that go with this legislation to address some of the long-standing challenges that have impacted survivors’ ability to access the services they need and that have impacted the ability of family members, of witnesses, to get adequate support.
I commend the Minister of Public Safety for looking at those regulations at the same time as these amendments to the legislation are up for consideration.
I’ll take my seat with that, but I just express gratitude to those doing this work in and outside the House and on the ground in community. I support this legislation.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Solicitor General.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for speaking to this important piece of legislation.
It is a bill that builds on work that has been done within my ministry in identifying what gaps there are in assistance for victims of crime. I think it’s crucial that we look at how we treat individuals who’ve been victims of crime and the supports that we’re able to give them, being able to expand them.
The idea that you have to have a strong emotional attachment to the victim in order to be considered for assistance when you witness a crime I think is something that is long overdue in terms of being dealt with. Likewise, recognizing the role of the family — that it is not just the parents, for example, but siblings, grandparents, grandchildren…. All of those things, all of those family relationships in the extended family are important, and this bill addresses those.
As my colleague who spoke before me indicated, the regulations will be developed, and there’s work being done on that. I look forward to that work and to putting in place regulations to help further and not just clarify but improve the system that we have in place.
This legislation, I think, is important. I’ve enjoyed hearing the comments that members on both sides have made about the bill. I look forward to further work in committee stage and getting the bill passed.
With that hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Deputy Speaker: You already moved it before, but that’s okay. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 37.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be committed or referred to a Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. L. Beare: I call Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, and I call a brief two-minute recess.
Deputy Speaker: We’ll have a two-minute recess.
An Hon. Member: How about five?
Deputy Speaker: Do I hear ten? We’ll have a five-minute recess. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 11:44 a.m. to 11:48 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
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 11:51 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 29 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 29; H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:03 a.m.
On clause 3 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning. I call Committee of the Whole to order on Bill 29, the Environmental Management Amendment Act.
Hon. G. Heyman: I will be tabling an amendment in my name to section 3, and I will provide a copy.
The Chair: I shall call a recess for the committee.
The committee recessed from 11:03 a.m. to 11:18 a.m.
[H. Yao in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, Environmental Management Amendment Act, back to order.
Members, we have an amendment on clause 3.
Hon. G. Heyman: When we last were in Committee of the Whole on this bill, the member for Kelowna-Mission raised some questions around an accountable person for costs if there is a default on costs. We had a discussion about whether that could include employees of the owner or operator, who can be a responsible person for other purposes. My response was that we would address that by regulation.
The intention of Bill 29 has always been to focus on facility owners or persons with legal or beneficial interests in the profits resulting from activities, not on employees who are simply carrying out their duties. But I take the member’s point that it was not clear in the legislation. For people to wait for regulatory clarity was not helpful and could cause concern. I thought about it. We discussed it internally and decided that we agree with the member’s point. I want to thank the member for making the point, which leads us to the amendment to clause 3, which I will now clarify.
In clause 3, in section 91.82, we add these words. “The following are not responsible persons: the government; an employee of a responsible person, if the employee has no legal or beneficial interest in the profits resulting from activities taking place at the facility; and a person excluded by regulation.”
Then in 91.87(1), it says: “In this section, ‘accountable person’, in relation to an abandoned facility, means all of the following persons, unless excluded by regulation.”
That is the amendment, which I move.
[CLAUSE 3, in the proposed sections 91.8 and 91.87, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:
Definitions
91.8 (1) In this Division:
“abandoned facility” means a specified facility determined under section 91.86 [abandoned facilities – government authority to decommission and close] to be an abandoned facility;
“decommissioning and closure plan” means a plan that is prepared and submitted under section 91.82 [decommissioning and closure plans];
“owner”, in relation to a specified facility, means
(a) a person who is in possession, has the right of control, or occupies or controls the use of the facility, or
(b) a person who has an estate or interest, legal or equitable, in the facility,
but does not include a person excluded by regulation;
“responsible person”, in relation to a specified facility, means, subject to subsection (2),
(a) an owner of the facility, or
(b) a person who is in control of or responsible for any
operation located at the facility,
but does not include a person excluded by
regulation;
“specified facility” means a facility used for a prescribed industrial or commercial purpose or activity.
(2) The following are not responsible persons:
(a) the government;
(b) an employee of a responsible person if the employee has no legal or beneficial interest in the profits resulting from activities taking place at the facility;
(c) a person excluded by regulation.
Cost recovery if government carries out
decommissioning and closure
91.87 (1) In this section,
“accountable person”, in relation to an abandoned
facility, means anyall of the following
persons unless excluded by regulation:
(a) an owner of the facility;
(b) a person who was a responsible person in relation to the facility immediately before operations ceased at the facility.
(2) Subject to the regulations, if, in relation to an abandoned facility, the total amount of the costs incurred by the government under section 91.86 [abandoned facilities – government authority to decommission and close] exceeds the amount of security, if any, given under section 91.84 [security in relation to decommissioning and closure] and held by the government, the amount of the excess is a debt due to the government by an accountable person.
(3) The costs referred to in subsection (2) include all of the government’s costs in relation to the decommissioning and closure, including, without limitation,
(a) for any of the following:
(i) the use of government employees or contractors in the decommissioning and closure, including
(A) hourly rates, and
(B) expenses, including food, accommodation and mileage;
(ii) the use of government vehicles, including mileage;
(iii) the use of consulting and professional services;
(iv) the use, maintenance and repair of government equipment;
(v) private goods and services contracted, hired, rented or purchased;
(vi) research and analytical services related to the decommissioning and closure, and
(b) a prescribed percentage of those costs the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers is sufficient to meet the government’s administrative costs.
(4) Each accountable person in relation to the abandoned facility is jointly and separately liable for the debt referred to in subsection (2).
(5) For the purpose of recovering all or part of the debt referred to in subsection (2), a director may file a certificate with a court that has jurisdiction, and, upon filing, the certificate has the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken on it, as if it were a judgment of the court with which it is filed against the person named, and in the amount set out, in that certificate.
(6) A certificate under subsection (5) may be in the prescribed form, must be signed by a director and must contain
(a) the name of the accountable person to whom the certificate relates,
(b) the address or location of the abandoned facility, and
(c) the amount of the debt to be recovered from the accountable person.
(7) A director may register a lien at the land title office against an abandoned facility for all or a portion of the debt referred to in subsection (2).
(8) A director may register a lien against the personal property of an accountable person for all or a portion of the debt referred to in subsection (2).
(9) On registration of a lien against the personal property of an accountable person under subsection (8), a lien is created on the present and after acquired personal property in which the person has a legal or equitable interest.]
The Chair: I have reviewed the amendment from the minister. It is in order.
I invite any member who would like to speak to the amendment to have the minister at this time.
On the amendment.
R. Merrifield: I just want to offer my gratitude to the minister for allowing the process and the rigour of this place, in this House, to give us the best legislation possible. I appreciate that the minister heard, both in the debate that was going on in this committee stage as well as in reflection after the fact, some of the concerns that, left to regulation, could really leave an ambiguity and a vagueness and, if not refined in regulation appropriately, could result in unintended consequences.
I truly believe that the intention, as stated by the minister as we were going through these sections, was as stated. Having said that, I deeply appreciate that he heard and reflected and was willing to bring forward these amendments.
At first glance…. I apologize. I’m just getting it right now. I am looking at it. It does seem to resolve the issue that we were debating last week.
I wanted to again extend my gratitude. There’s a sense of just being pleased that democracy won on this one. So thanks.
Amendment approved.
On clause 3 as amended.
R. Merrifield: Carrying back over here. I noted that in the amendment, we have crossed out the “person excluded by regulation” and added it back into subsection (2).
I wanted to clarify or confirm that the minister’s intention on that was the same as previously canvassed. It was that a person would be…. I’d asked for an example in a previous discussion. The government would be a person that would be excluded.
Is there anyone outside of that that I should be aware of, or does that clause not change any of the intention?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.
The amendment to the legislation, in clause 3, now very specifically excludes the government and excludes an employee with no — sorry, I’d better make sure I’ve got the language exactly right — legal or beneficial interest. I can’t think of anyone else or any other entity, at the moment, that might be excluded by regulation.
It is a standard piece of language that’s put in legislation to address something that may come up that is legitimate and, therefore, to be able to do it without requiring a return to the Legislature.
R. Merrifield: Under the definition of a specified facility…. This seems to be left somewhat to regulation. In the preliminary briefing with staff, we had canvassed this a little bit, and it was indicated that it could possibly apply to the forestry sector.
Could the minister provide some direction as to what the “prescribed industrial or commercial purpose or activity” will or won’t be and which will or won’t be included in future regulations?
Hon. G. Heyman: The Environmental Management Act — this is a set of amendments to the act — prohibits the discharge of pollution to the environment unless an industrial facility prescribed under the Waste Discharge Regulation has an act of authorization. Therefore, the projects that would be in scope, specified facilities, would be those listed in the Waste Discharge Regulation, recognizing that mining and oil and gas operations are already regulated under the Mines Act and the B.C. Energy Regulator under the Energy Resource Activities Act.
It’s not a completely exhaustive list. Some of the industries that might be covered would be smelting, chemical manufacturing, commercial waste management, some mining activities, petroleum refining, and pulp and paper mills.
R. Merrifield: Under 91.81(1), it says a director may order a responsible person to provide to the director information. Could the minister describe in what instances a director would not order a person to provide the information?
Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I think this is fairly standard legal language in bills. It’s permissive without being absolutely mandatory. An example of where there might not be an order made would be for a low-risk industry where it just was not considered necessary. An example would be agriculture.
R. Merrifield: In 91.81(2), it states that an order “must be served on the responsible person.” Does this mean that a single individual or entity will be designated as the responsible person regardless of ownership structures, or given that there are potential financial implications, could the minister explain why it is at the person’s own expense as opposed to the business’s?
Hon. G. Heyman: I think the amendment that we just voted on would cover the member’s concern in this regard, where it says that a responsible person is not an employee of a responsible person if the employee has no legal or beneficial interest in the profits resulting from the activities taking place at the facility.
R. Merrifield: Thanks, Minister.
Could the minister, then, just describe for me what the processes are or how the beneficial interest in the profits would be defined or allocated?
Hon. G. Heyman: I think we will actually probably address that in an amendment to clause 4, but the regulation-making…. Maybe we should leave it till then, but I will simply repeat that regulation-making power doesn’t give executive council the ability to contravene clearly stated intent in the legislation. The clear intent in the legislation here is to exclude people with no legal or beneficial interest in an enterprise. There may, in future, be some reason to define or narrow that further which we can’t contemplate. When we get to clause 4, we’ll discuss that.
R. Merrifield: Just in order to clarify…. If this is dealt with in clause 4, that’s totally fine too.
I’m believing that what the minister is stating, then, is that beneficial interest isn’t a promotion or a paycheque, but beneficial interest is more being able to benefit from the overall asset. I’ll just clarify. A person that is employed could have a profit-sharing plan but isn’t necessarily involved or engaged in the ownership structure of the of the entity.
Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I think this question is better suited for clause 4.
R. Merrifield: Holding me in suspense. All right. I will wait to ask again, then, in that section.
I will note for the minister that the recent legislation on the Land Owner Transparency Act — well, recent, 2019 — actually has very clear definitions on beneficial ownership. This takes us to a beneficial interest in the profits. That’s kind of the line of questioning. So I’ll wait till clause 4 to ask further on that.
And 91.82 begins with “Subject to the regulations.” What regulatory work does that refer to?
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the, regulation will be developed, and it will be developed in consultation. It will be developed to ensure that it is appropriate to and defines the circumstances in which action should be taken or to define what needs to be contained in a decommissioning and closure plan, quite possibly in a different circumstance.
R. Merrifield: Then would this be the process, still, of engagement with industry as those regulations come to fruition?
Hon. G. Heyman: Yes.
R. Merrifield: Then per 91.82(1), what requirements or expertise will be required of those who will be required to produce the decommissioning and closure plans? What criteria is going to be set for those who can credibly prepare those plans?
Hon. G. Heyman: Upon royal assent to the act, we will begin work of further consultation with industry and the public around the range of circumstances that are covered by this bill for which decommissioning and closure plans could be required.
We will consult with industry around what specific qualifications would be required for different types of decommissioning and closure plans perhaps. There may be a variance by sector, or there may not, but we will specify that, ultimately, in the regulation following consultation. But the qualifications generally would be those possessed by a qualified professional.
R. Merrifield: What substances or things…? I’ll leave that one alone, just in the interest of time.
In 91.82(1)(a), we have cause pollution. Could the minister give us a…? Is there a list of those specific aspects that would be included under 91.82(1)(a)?
Hon. G. Heyman: The definition of pollution is found in the definitions of the Environmental Management Act as a whole. The definition of pollution means “the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment.” Examples would be chemicals that are used in a particular process, by-products of the industrial process, etc.
R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Minister.
In the same subsection, under (b), land is actually specified but not water or groundwater. Would either be included as a result of subsection (1)(c) as it relates to section 39(1) of the act?
Hon. G. Heyman: The definition of contamination in 39(1) does include water.
I note the hour. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section C) on Bill 31; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, to order.
Clause 69 approved.
On clause 70.
L. Doerkson: Good morning, Minister. Thanks again for this time together.
I wanted to ask a few questions on clause 70 with respect to the suggestion that before taking any action for the purpose of responding…. We talked a little bit about this yesterday, but this now refers to a “regulated entity.” I can guess at a few different situations where they may be forced to act, but again, there’s that question about that management plan.
I wonder if the minister could maybe expand a little bit on this clause.
Hon. B. Ma: Section 70, similarly to previous sections, I’d describe as giving relevance to the emergency management plan. Regulated entities are required to consider emergency management plans before they take response actions. That ensures that the planning and response activities that are included in the emergency management plan that they have created are considered in the event that there’s an actual emergency.
Oftentimes in an emergency, actions need to be taken very quickly. Many of those actions have significant implications for people in communities. So relying on the plans that have been made, through consultation and with the luxury of time, can lead to substantially better results. It ensures that all the effort that has gone into creating an emergency management plan doesn’t just sit on the shelf to collect dust. Rather, they have very real applications during an actual emergency.
L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. That’s exactly, I guess, why I have questions on this one. I guess I am concerned a little bit about a liability that may be formed, under this clause, for regulated entities.
I also am concerned about the timelines. In other words, these may be developing disasters that, potentially, the regulated entity itself doesn’t even know about yet. Potentially, it’s something that staff have discovered, and they take action.
I’m just unclear here as to why…. I’m sure that, in many circumstances, staff and others that work for that entity would know how to divert that emergency. I’m not suggesting that an emergency plan should sit on the shelf. I’m curious to understand how that may happen in a case of anything — I mean, pick a pipeline spill or any kind of a different emergency. The suggestion that we would have to go through these steps….
I’m wondering if the liability has been contemplated, and I’m also wondering if I’ve got these steps right.
Hon. B. Ma: Effectively, what this clause says is that when there is an emergency, make sure you check your emergency management plan before you take action.
In the member’s suggestion of an oil spill, it could be as simple as taking a look at the map or at an area that is included in the emergency management plan to determine whether or not there are any objects or sites of heritage value that have been identified in the area of the spill, so that actions are taken in a way that take that into consideration.
The emergency management plan can be very useful in that scenario, to identify whether there are other entities that the regulated entity should reach out to, and coordinate actions with, prior to taking them.
Maybe if the member could elaborate a bit more on what he views as potential liabilities, we can answer that question more specifically or dig down into that concern.
L. Doerkson: Minister, I think what you just said is my concern.
With respect to the sequence of events in reacting, I can appreciate that there is certainly an importance to better understanding other partners, other neighbours, those types of things. But the clause is clear. It says “before taking any action,” and the minister just confirmed that.
In the case of any kind of a regulated entity — or for that matter, a local authority, although this clause does not talk about local authorities — if they have made a split-second decision to do something that potentially damages another site, or those actions create some other problem on the landscape because they did not take the time to fully understand the emergency plan for that noted emergency, is there a liability there on behalf of the regulated entity? What may occur if they chose not to?
Hon. B. Ma: I’m not sure what more I can offer on this. Certainly it is the case that an entity that takes an action should consider the consequences of that action. That would apply, really, in any circumstance, not limited to emergency management.
Perhaps what helps is to know that regulated entities are not required to follow their plans exactly, because the plans might not actually capture all the nuance of a particular situation during an actual emergency, especially where flexibility is required. But it is appropriate, I think, and necessary for an acting entity to think about the potential consequences of their actions. All of the pre-work that goes into the development of an emergency management plan facilitates that.
Whether it is physically opening up the plan or a consideration that is made by a member of the emergency operations centre that already knows the plan very well and has a sense of what’s in it, the regulated entity would have taken the time to put that emergency management plan together, and it should mean something. It’s really about….
Let’s say you have an emergency situation happening. You think about the emergency management plan that the organization has. The organization has a plan on flooding and where critical infrastructure flooding might be or where flooding might cause significant damage to the community. Knowing that, we refer to the plan, check it out, and then that will inform your actions — the deployment of sandbags on the east side of a structure versus the west side of a structure or so forth.
The clause does not require that an entity follow their plans exactly. It just requires that they consider that they have a plan and that they should take a look at it or know generally what’s in it before they take an action.
L. Doerkson: But Minister, that’s exactly what this clause says. It says: “Before taking any action for the purpose of responding to or recovering from an emergency….” We’ve discussed that a little bit, with respect to first response for fires and those types of things.
Now, it’s a bit of a different example. But in the example that you’re referring to, putting sandbags into place on the west side or the east side and that creating some sort of an issue…. Had the plan not been contemplated, had decisions been made in the heat of the moment to respond to something…. I think the minister did touch on the fact that perhaps these plans would be known in advance or that sort of suggestion.
I guess what I’m trying to get at is: is there a liability issue here for a company that does not follow this timeline, does not respond to an emergency in this manner? I can appreciate that everybody is somewhat prepared on the landscape, but as we’ve discussed at length, there’s been obvious history of things that we haven’t been ready for.
In this particular case — and I’m not, certainly, wanting to go to where we got to yesterday, with aliens and those types of things — I am very concerned about the liability that a regulated entity might face here. If the minister can confirm to me that there wouldn’t be a liability, I would feel much more comfortable.
Hon. B. Ma: I can confirm that there is not a link between this section and the offence provisions of the EDMA, nor does it affect the liability protections that are covered in section 154.
This provision was largely included as a result of consultations with Indigenous partners who pointed out that there was a need for a stronger connection between the existence of a plan and how actions are taken during emergencies. So if there is a plan that exists, it should be referred to during the actual emergency.
L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister. So I’ll take that to understand that there wouldn’t be a liability with respect to that timeline if it occurred in a way different than the minister lays out in clause 70.
My next question with respect to this clause is: has there been any contemplation of fines or compliance or anything else outside of the liability that we just talked about?
Hon. B. Ma: I might want to try again to provide clarity. It is not the case that we’re saying that there’s no liability associated with this section but, rather, that it does not affect civil liability. So it neither increases it, nor does it absolve the actor from any liability that they might be subject to as a result of their action.
That being said, the liability protections are included in EDMA. That’s covered under section 154. It’s not affected by this section. For further clarity, there’s not a link between this section and the offence provisions of the EDMA. There’s no connection there.
L. Doerkson: With apologies to the minister, I guess I was clear and now I’m not with respect to liability. All that I really want to understand is that if a regulated entity does not follow this sequence….
I’m not asking if they have more or less liability. My question really goes to the point that if they do not follow this sequence, if they act outside of this sequence, does this clause…? I’m not worried about 154. Does it impose any liability on the company if it’s found that they did not act within this timeline?
Hon. B. Ma: I think that, maybe, part of the challenge in my responding to the question was that I was caught up with the word “liability.” If the member means “consequences” — is there a consequence under the act to not following through on section 70 in the way that it is laid out? — well, certainly, we would want all regulated entities to comply with the law, but there are no fines under offences in the EDMA.
It is possible that a regulation for administrative monetary damages and penalties could be created against the section. However, the member asked if we have contemplated that, and we have not considered penalties for this section. Maybe to be more clear, as well, we would say that no, this section does not impose any new liabilities. It also does not absolve, nor change…. It doesn’t impose any new liabilities through this section. Maybe that provides a more clear response.
L. Doerkson: It certainly helps to understand that there are no new liabilities, because that’s really what my focus is.
If a regulated entity in this case has an emergency plan that requires them to complete an action, in the case of whatever specified emergency there is, and they choose, for a variety of reasons, to not review that plan in the heat of the moment, and they act without reviewing that plan, because there was no time…. You know, a number of different excuses may crop up. That is all that I really want to be just very crystal-clear on: that there is no liability because they were not able to respond to this timeline.
Hon. B. Ma: Yeah, section 70 does not impose any new liabilities.
Clause 70 approved.
On clause 71.
L. Doerkson: Just before we get into this division, I just want to clearly understand. The minister may make orders. I want to get a sense of what types of orders. I can presume, obviously, states of emergency for the province, but what other orders may be contemplated in the next number of clauses?
Hon. B. Ma: The orders that a minister may make are covered in this division, which runs from sections 71 to 79.
To provide a summary of those orders under this section for now, section 74 authorizes the minister to order a person to provide information, to take an emergency measure or comply with directions of the provincial administrator, a lead minister or a person within a specified class of persons.
Section 75 allows the minister, by order, to take actions in regards to essential supplies, equipment, services, property or facilities, as well as authorize or require a person to provide a service or give assistance during a response to a declared state of emergency. Maybe some examples. For instance, the minister could identify certain types of fuel as essential and ration the distribution or sale of diesel to non-essential uses. This could be involving rationing.
Under section 76, the minister can create orders to take action or authorize or require others to take actions that impact land and personal property during a state of provincial emergency.
Section 77 allows the minister to, by order, require and authorize the evacuation and removals of people, animals, personal property during a state of provincial emergency.
Section 78 allows the minister to, by order, control or prohibit certain actions related to travel, business activity or an event, regardless of other existing licences, permits or authorizations under an enactment.
Section 79 authorizes the minister responsible for the Fire Services Act to assume control of fire services in B.C. and designate the fire commissioner as having authority over those services under the EDMA. In this case, the minister responsible for the Fire Services Act would be Public Safety and Solicitor General.
So that’s, at a high level, the types of orders that would be enabled through section 71. I’m happy to dive into any of those, section by section, as well.
Clause 71 approved.
Hon. B. Ma: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.