Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading on Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1).

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Attorney General.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2024

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2024 be read a second time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2024. Bill 6 provides interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations for approximately the first two months of 2024-2025, while the House completes de­bate of appropriations presented in the 2024-2025 estimates.

[1:35 p.m.]

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required to ensure continuation of government services until the final supply bill comes into force. Bill 6 also provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2024-2025 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements.

The one-third appropriation provided for in relation to these disbursements is higher than the proportion authorized in relation to ministry operations, as the disbursements described in schedules C and D are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments that will be made under these schedules.

Bill 6 also authorizes the full amount of disbursements referred to in schedule E of the 2024-2025 estimates. Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected on behalf of and transferred to the specific programs or entities. There is no impact on operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of this revenue. These interim supply appropriations are based on accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2024-2025 estimates.

The final supply bill for the 2024-2025 fiscal year will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in that fiscal year.

P. Milobar: I rise to speak to Bill 6, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2024.

Certainly, it’s pretty standard fare that happens every year. Of course, the opposition wants to see the good, orderly functioning of government.

As witnessed by our vote, just before lunch, on the overall end of the budget debate as we head into estimates, we certainly were opposed to the broader, global budget that the government has presented. I’m sure we’ll have more to say as we move through estimates and as we move through committee stage of the various bills.

In regard to Bill 6 itself, obviously, we’ll see it move forward so that government stores can keep open. We will be voicing our opposition to broader things within the budget than trying to split hairs within a supply bill that is pretty standard.

Thanks for the time on Bill 6.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move second reading of Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1).

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that Bill 6 be committed to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 2024, 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. R. Kahlon: I call Bill 2 in the main chamber.

BILL 2 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

I am honoured to rise today to present this bill, which amends the Employment Standards Act to provide more certainty and predictability for future increases to B.C.’s minimum wage rates. These amendments will apply to the general minimum wage and to the alternate minimum wages, such as those for residential caretakers and live-in home support workers. They will also apply to minimum piece rates for hand-harvesting of specific crops.

For decades, B.C.’s minimum wage rates increased in an unpredictable, ad hoc manner, with cabinet deciding when to adjust the minimum wage and by how much. As there were no statutory automatic increases to the minimum wage, there were long periods when B.C.’s lowest-paid workers saw no increase to their pay. That means that regardless of the increased cost of living, the minimum wage did not increase.

We have examples of how this approach has impacted both workers and employers. For example, in 2001, the minimum wage was adjusted to $8 an hour. This represented an increase of about 6 percent over the previous rate. However, after that, it was almost ten years before there was another minimum-wage increase.

[1:40 p.m.]

After ten years, the government of the day then in­creased the minimum wage by 19 percent, over two years, to make up for some of the lost ground these workers had suffered — which, as you might expect, was a shock to some businesses that paid their workers minimum wage, as they had to rapidly adjust to the additional labour cost.

Workers earning minimum wage had been left behind during the ten years when the minimum wage was frozen. We know the minimum wage earners in B.C. include some of the most vulnerable workers. We also know that women, ethnic minority groups and newcomers to Canada are overrepresented among minimum-wage earners. One thing they all have in common is that they are the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers in British Columbia. Many of these workers rely on this income to support their families and pay their bills.

Our government believes that it is important to provide stability to these workers, so they can be secure in the knowledge that their wages will keep up with inflation. Our government also believes in providing stability and certainty for businesses and employers by providing steady and predictable increases to minimum wages and avoiding large and unpredictable jumps. That, to me, is basic decency and common sense.

This is why, when our government was elected in 2017, one of the first things we did was appoint the Fair Wages Commission, which was tasked with, among other things, laying out a path for B.C. to reach a general minimum wage, from $11.35 at the time, to at least $15 an hour. That’s what they did.

Then our government accepted the recommendations. The commission outlined a series of measured, predictable, gradual increases, with annual raises taking effect each June 1, over four years. By June 2021, B.C. had reached a minimum wage of $15.20 an hour, according to the recommendation of the Fair Wages Commission, taking B.C. from having one of the lowest wages in the country to one of the highest.

We also eliminated the lower, discriminatory wages for liquor servers. By the way, about 80 to 82 percent of them are women. These workers also can enjoy at least the basic minimum wage.

One of the key findings coming out of the work of the Fair Wages Commission was that the regular, measured, predictable increases to the minimum wage are better than long freezes followed by large increases. So our government committed that once we reached $15.20, as recommended by the commission, the minimum wage would be tied to inflation each year. So for the last two increases, we have passed regulations, approved by cabinet, to increase B.C.’s minimum wage in accordance with the inflation.

On June 1, 2022, the minimum wage rose from $15.20 to $15.65. That was a 2.8 percent increase, representing the average inflation rate in 2021. Again, on June 1, 2023, the minimum wage rose to $16.75 an hour. That represents a 6.9 percent increase, which was B.C.’s average inflation rate in 2022.

Specifically, we are talking about the increase in the annual average consumer price index for B.C., calculated each year by Statistics Canada. The 2022 and 2023 increases to the minimum wage were not required by legislation. Rather, they were ad hoc, done by regulation, and without employers and workers knowing for sure it would happen.

The approach in this legislation provides stability, certainty and predictability for minimum-wage increases for employees and their employers. Workers are assured that going forward, each year, their wages will keep up with the well-established cost-of-living indicator, while businesses will know early in the year what they can expect for the annual minimum-wage increase.

[1:45 p.m.]

I might add here that Statistics Canada provides the average cost of living or CPI, consumer price index, for the previous year, some time in January. So for the minimum-wage increase to be implemented on June 1, they have plenty of time now, knowing exactly what is coming, so that they can start to adjust their budgets for the following year. This will help workers and employers alike support a strong, healthy and fair economy in B.C.

While the path to increases has been achieved through annual amendments to the Employment Standards Regulation, and this could have continued every year, we have made the commitment to tie increases to the minimum wage to inflation. This bill will formalize that commitment through legislation.

By doing so, we will be joining the majority of Canadian jurisdictions that have minimum wage increases automatically, according to inflation. While their practices vary, eight jurisdictions have statutory, regulatory or other re­quirements that tie their minimum wages to the consumer price index, the recognized standard for measuring inflation, as most people in this House know. We believe that it is the right approach for B.C. as well.

So I’m pleased to have introduced Bill 2, which will amend the Employment Standards Act to require all minimum-wage rates to increase by the previous calendar year’s average change to B.C.’s consumer price index. Consistent with recent practice, the increases to most minimum-wage rates will come into effect June 1 this year, with the exception of minimum piece rates, where the increases will take place the following winter.

Specifically for the agricultural piece rates, we will be developing a regulation to ensure that this adjustment comes into force the following December 31. This is generally consistent with our current practice and ensures that crop producers will not have to adjust minimum wages during the harvest and farming seasons.

It is true that in recent years, increases to the minimum piece rates have occurred on January 1, following the June increases to the other rates. The move to the December 31 effective date will ensure that the indexing formula in the act is applied in the appropriate calendar year for all the minimum-wage rates.

I am pleased to announce that using the formula set under this bill, on June 1 this year, British Columbia’s general minimum wage will increase to $17.40 per hour, based on the 2023 average percentage change to B.C.’s consumer price index, at 3.9 percent. Likewise, the alternate minimum-wage rates, including the minimum piece rates, will also increase by 3.9 percent this year.

The bill ensures that cabinet will continue to have some flexibility in setting rates for the alternate minimum wages. While any alternate rate will automatically receive the annual consumer price index increases, cabinet will be able to provide additional changes if needed for other policy reasons in the future.

For example, there are 15 crops that are paid by piece rate in British Columbia right now. There is a discussion on whether they should continue to enjoy the piece rate for those crops. Should some of them be taken out or some more be added?

For that reason, we left them in the hands of cabinet, for them to make decisions if, in the future, some of those changes need to be made, such as removing an alternate minimum-wage rate if it is determined that the general rate already should apply, or by adding additional, alternate rates to respond to changes in B.C.’s economy.

The bill also specifies that the minimum-wage rate must not decrease in the event of negative inflation. The member from Kelowna, the other day in his speech, asked that question. I clarified it at that time; I’m clarifying it again. The minimum wage will not decrease in the event that there is negative inflation or we get deflation, although this is a historical, rare scenario.

[1:50 p.m.]

This legislation is the culmination of our effort to raise the minimum wage to fair, reasonable levels and to ensure those wages are not eroded over time. Minimum wages will now increase in a steady, incremental manner and ensure that future increases will not be through an ad hoc approach.

The amendments bring British Columbia into line with several other Canadian jurisdictions and will ensure that businesses will know early in each new year what to expect for minimum wage increases. They provide transparency, predictability and certainty for employers and employees on when and how minimum rates will increase. Most importantly, these amendments are part of our government’s extensive effort to help lift people out of poverty, make life more affordable and build a strong and fair economy for all British Columbians.

These changes will benefit the most vulnerable people in our society, where women, ethnic minorities and newcomers to Canada are disproportionately represented. They will provide low-wage workers and their families with the minimum wage increases to offset rising prices and ensure that their wages do not diminish in purchasing power over time. For anyone who works hard to make a living and support their families, I think this is the very least we can do.

As someone said, society is judged by how we treat our most vulnerable: the weak and the sick. I think this is one of the most vulnerable groups of people, and we must value the work that they do. We must value that they also must be able to make a decent living to support their families.

I look forward to committee stage for this bill.

G. Kyllo: It certainly gives me a great amount of pride to rise in the House today and respond to Bill 2, Employment Standards Amendment Act. As the minister has set out, the impetus of this bill is to set the annual increase of the minimum wage to the consumer price index.

Now currently in this province, that is exactly the guidance that’s actually provided to the minister, and they do have the ability, through an order-in-council, to establish the rate. This is actually taking away the flexibility of government to do additional adjustments should we have significantly higher inflation rates.

I think, as we see the minimum wage rate look to in­crease to $17.40 an hour on June 1 of this year, it’s largely to address an affordability crisis that we have in this province. We have certainly seen a blizzard of new and increased taxation by this government, which disproportionately impacts some of the lowest-paid workers in this province.

As we look to the increase, which is 65 cents an hour…. If you look at the average worker, working 2,000 hours a year, that’s an additional $1,300 in gross pay. But that is not what those workers will actually receive, net of deduction.

I think it’s important to have a look at context as we see the increasing cost pressures that are facing British Columbians, with the highest utilization of food banks in the history of B.C., with a rent affordability crisis to the point that families are actually leaving this province. For the last five quarters, we’ve seen a net reduction of British Columbians moving to alternative jurisdictions just to meet the affordability crisis.

I certainly appreciate the effort that the minister is making with this particular piece of legislation, but it does remove the flexibility of government to make further adjustments that the current legislation does allow. It is guided by the consumer price index with respect to the rate of increase for the minimum wage. However, by baking it into legislation, government now will lose the flexibility.

I think that is an important facet of democracy, so governments of the day have that flexibility in order to make adjustments should the inflation rate or the consumer price index in this province actually excel.

[1:55 p.m.]

We have seen, time and time again, different reports out about the sheer inability of British Columbians to actually make their bill payments at the end of each month. Over 50 percent of British Columbians are less than $200 away from insolvency at the end of every month.

I certainly appreciate the efforts the minister is undertaking with this piece of legislation. It’s also really important to have a look at the broader context of affordability and the increasing tax pressures that are put on the average hard-working British Columbian, especially those that are the minimum-wage workers in B.C.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to have a bit more direct conversation with the minister through committee stage on this particular bill. But again, I can’t stress enough the fact that we are in an absolute affordability crisis in British Columbia right now, with more and more families seeking to move out of this province because of the inability to actually make their payments on a monthly basis.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Transit.

Hon. D. Coulter: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in front of you once again.

I’ll say that you’re one of my favourite Speakers. I have to say “one of my favourites,” because I offended a Speaker, I think, last session when I said that someone else was my favourite Speaker. So you are one of my favourite Speakers, Madam Speaker.

I want to start off, maybe, with the affordability crisis and flexibility. Really, when the other side is talking about flexibility, they’re talking about the flexibility to cap or freeze minimum-wage increases, the kind of flexibility that they used for ten years to freeze minimum wages. No wonder we have an affordability crisis in this province.

These people are some of the most vulnerable workers. As the Labour Minister said, these workers are often wo­men, minorities, newcomers, people that are on the margins. So it’s very important to tie these wages to the consumer price index so that these people can afford to live, afford to buy the goods that they need.

This will strengthen our economy, because these folks don’t invest in mutual funds or use other financial instruments when they get an increase in their minimum wage. They spend that money in our communities, strengthening our local businesses. It’s very important, and it’s going to strengthen our economy.

Tying the minimum-wage increases to CPI year over year, as well, so it is predictable both for businesses and for workers, so they can plan their lives…. There are other reasons why tying minimum wage to CPI is good for our communities. It’ll create more opportunity for people to engage with their communities, to be able to buy goods within their communities but also so that they can engage with their communities and be more part of their communities instead of maybe having to get second, third jobs. So it’s very, very important.

The member opposite talks about taxes, increased taxes. We know that increased taxes are not on the middle class or the people who are making minimum wage. We know that. So what taxes does he have a problem with — taxes on luxury cars or cigarettes?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Coulter: Okay. Obviously a smoker who drives a luxury car should have their taxes lowered. Absolutely.

Once again, I want to talk about the flexibility and how long these people’s wages were frozen. We are talking about women, minorities, newcomers. We froze these peo­ple’s wages so that they had to work second, third jobs. Actually, sorry. We didn’t freeze those wages. The other side froze those wages.

[2:00 p.m.]

They should actually be ashamed of that, because they put people into poverty, and they wonder why there’s an affordability crisis now. They wonder why these people are in an affordability crisis. Well, freezing their wages is part of why they’re in an affordability crisis.

This bill is incredibly important. I’m proud to support this bill. I’m proud that the Labour Minister is my colleague and that he’s introducing this bill.

With that, I hope everyone in this place supports this bill and doesn’t believe in freezing folks’ minimum wages. With that, I yield to the Labour Minister, it looks like.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll recognize the Minister of Labour to close debate.

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the speakers, the opposition critic and the minister from Chilliwack for their comments.

There’s only one thing I want to comment on that was said by the opposition critic, that the government somehow is losing flexibility. I think what really is happening with this bill is to provide the certainty that the businesses wanted. For those who have not had the opportunity to read the report by the Fair Wages Commission, that came out very clear that all businesses wanted was certainty. This bill will provide them with that certainty.

We listened to the businesses, especially small busines­ses and, at the same time, provide support to some of the most vulnerable workers in our province.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2024, 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. D. Coulter: I call second reading of Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024.

BILL 3 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2024

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that Bill 3, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, be read a second time now.

Bill 3 consists of two parts. In Part 1, the bill amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to include the 2026-2027 fiscal year in the period of fiscal years that may contain a deficit in the main estimates. This is consistent with similar amendments made in recent years.

Budget 2024 includes a three-year fiscal plan extending to 2026-2027, and it includes deficit forecasts for each of the three years of the fiscal plan. This proposed amendment ensures that the fiscal plan, as presented in Budget 2024, is in line with the legislation. It ensures that the fiscal plan aligns with government’s commitment to review balanced-budget legislation every year and to make amendments if and when required.

Amendments are proposed to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act to establish a First Nations equity financing special account. Government is taking action to support First Nations and the B.C. business sector in developing strong economic development partnerships through the development of a provincial First Nations equity financing framework.

As part of this work, these amendments will establish a First Nations equity financing special account with a $10 million inaugural balance to help support immediate capacity needs for those First Nations actively considering equity participation in projects where there is a shared interest and readiness with the province. As well, the special account provides for provincial government costs to operationalize the First Nation’s equity financing program.

[2:05 p.m.]

The special account also allows government to provide provincial guarantees for equity loans undertaken by First Nations for the purpose of acquiring an equity interest in priority projects in the province. Consistent with the approach in other jurisdictions, the special account will have a cumulative loan guarantee limit of $1 billion set by regulation, and the policy will be reviewed annually.

The special account inaugural balance is a starting point, and additional resources will be added to the ac­count as Treasury Board determines the requirements to support approved projects and financing plans developed by the province and First Nations in partnership with the business community.

Throughout the coming months, the province will consult and cooperate with First Nations and organizations and will engage business leaders across B.C. to help further develop the First Nations equity financing framework. The new equity financing tools through this special account are intended to support inclusive project partnerships as we continue to support First Nations self-determination and meaningful participation in economic opportunities.

Part 2 of Bill 3 amends several statutes to implement the tax measures in Budget 2024. Bill 3 amends the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement Act, the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act and various other statutes to implement a new legislative framework to broadly enable modern treaty nations to self-determine their own approaches to assessment and property taxation on their respective Nisg̱a’a lands and treaty lands.

The province, modern treaty nations and First Nations who are advanced in the B.C. treaty negotiations process have, since 2021, been working in partnership to collaboratively develop a new approach to treaty property taxation based on the principles of self-determination, flexibility and uniqueness.

In Budget 2023, we implemented an important first step by enabling the Nisg̱a’a Nation and modern treaty First Nations to self-determine property tax exemptions for their citizens or members on Nisg̱a’a lands and on treaty lands.

Effective as of the 2025 taxation year, the province will fully withdraw from property taxation on Nisg̱a’a lands and modern treaty nations treaty lands and will no longer impose a requirement for property taxation to apply.

The new legislative framework will enable modern treaty nations to determine if or when it is appropriate for property tax to apply on their core governance lands, including whether and how to exercise their own assessment and property taxation laws and policies. This puts exclusive decision-making for most property interests on Nisg̱a’a lands and treaty lands into the hands of modern treaty nations, enabling them to design approaches that best reflect their unique circumstances.

This new approach maintains important elements of the previous approach. Modern treaty nations will continue to keep the revenues raised from property taxation on their respective Nisg̱a’a lands or treaty lands and will continue to contribute to applicable provincial services, such as regional hospital districts. The province will also, by agreement, continue to delegate the authority to tax non-member holders of property interests on Nisg̱a’a lands and treaty lands to modern treaty nations.

Separately, but in tandem, amendments to the Assessment Act will better align provincial assessment rules with unique aspects of Nisg̱a’a lands and treaty lands as well as modern treaty nation governance. These measures were developed collaboratively with all of our modern treaty nations partners and with First Nations who are advanced in the treaty negotiation process.

They are responsive to First Nations’ concerns about the previous approach to property taxation on Nisg̱a’a lands and on treaty lands, including that it is overly prescriptive, inflexible and did not recognize the unique aspects of modern treaty nations’ lands and governance. They align with governments reconciliation commitments to self-determination, an inherent right of self-government under the Shared Priorities Framework and the Declaration Act Action Plan.

Bill 3 further amends the Assessment Act to provide B.C. Assessment with the authority to phase in substantial assessment increases from three to five years for certain linear properties such as railway tracks, fibre optic cables and electrical transmission lines.

These linear properties are valued annually through a regulation based on industry costing manuals that calculate the average building replacement costs. Updating the costing model for linear properties can result in unforeseen and significant valuation increases for certain industries. The amendment will provide B.C. Assessment with more flexibility when implementing large increases in assessed values for certain linear properties.

[2:10 p.m.]

The bill amends the Assessment Authority Act to transfer the authority to approve B.C. Assessment’s tax levy re­quest from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to Treasury Board. The amendment intends to streamline B.C. Assessment’s budget and levy approval process by allowing Treasury Board to approve both B.C. Assessment’s budget and the tax levy that funds its operations.

This bill amends the Property Transfer Tax Act to in­crease the qualifying value thresholds for first-time homebuyers and newly built home exemptions. The newly built home exemption provides a reduction or elimination of property transfer tax for qualifying purchasers of newly built homes used as a principal residence. Effective April 1, 2024, the fair market value threshold is increased from $750,000 to $1.1 million.

Since the newly built homes exemption was introduced in 2016, the threshold has not increased to reflect the growing costs of purchasing a new home. Increasing the newly built homes threshold responds to increasing housing prices and will incentivize an increase in the supply of new and much-needed moderately priced housing stock.

The first-time-homebuyers exemption provides a re­duction or elimination of property transfer tax for qualifying first-time purchasers of homes used as a principal residence.

I am reading the same page a second time, so I’ll move on.

Bill 3 also amends the Property Transfer Tax Act to exempt purchases of new qualifying purpose-built rental buildings from the general property transfer tax. This exemption will be effective for transactions that occur between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2030. Purpose-built rental buildings are those that are non-stratified and held as rentals on a monthly basis, or longer, for at least 10 years. The residential portion of the building must be used entirely for rental purposes and have at least four apartments.

This exemption builds on the further 2 percent property transfer tax exemption for new purpose-built rentals an­nounced in Budget 2023 and the rental housing revitalization tax exemption provided in Budget 2018. The intent of this exemption is to further encourage the construction of new purpose-built rental buildings to help address housing affordability.

The bill makes amendments to the Property Transfer Tax Act to establish administrative penalties for failure to provide records and information. When determining if the correct amount of property transfer tax was paid on registration, the ministry may contact taxpayers to verify the information provided on the tax return. The amendments provide the administrator with the ability to impose monetary penalties on taxpayers who fail to provide records and information when required.

Additional technical amendments are made to the Property Transfer Tax Act to harmonize the calculation of interest on property transfer tax owing to government and on refund of overpaid property transfer tax to taxpayer with other provincial tax statutes. The amendments clarify that interest is payable in accordance with the Financial Administration Act and its regulations.

Bill 3 also amends the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act to shift the responsibility of the speculation and vacancy tax for residential leasehold properties from fee-simple owners to registered leaseholders as they have control over how the property is used.

Effective January 1, 2024, a person who possesses a residential property under a lease registered in the Land Title and Survey Authority of B.C. will be treated as the registered occupier of the property for the purpose of the speculation and vacancy tax. Registered leaseholders who are not already required to declare in 2024 will declare for the first time in 2025 based on the use of the property in 2024.

The bill amends the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act to add a new assessment period for cases where the administrator uses its discretion to examine and assess late speculation and vacancy tax annual declarations. The amendments ensure that the administrator has sufficient time to audit based on the latest information without running the risk of becoming statute barred from assessing declarations that are filed close to the end of the normal six-year assessment period.

The bill also includes technical measures to improve readability of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act for members of the public. The act contains two provisions which refer to “the date this Act receives First Reading in the Legislative Assembly.” That general reference is being replaced by the actual date the act received first reading, which is October 16, 2018.

Bill 3 amends the Employer Health Tax Act to increase the exemption threshold at which remuneration becomes taxable from $500,000 to $1 million. The bill includes a corresponding increase to the notch rate to maintain the gradual transition to the full tax rate.

[2:15 p.m.]

Increasing the exemption threshold will help support growing businesses in B.C. by exempting approximately 9,000 businesses from taxation. An additional 4,100 businesses will see a reduced tax liability. We expect this change to increase the number of businesses that are ex­empt from the employer health tax from 85 percent to approximately 90 percent, starting for the 2024 calendar year.

Bill 3 amends the Income Tax Act to introduce a B.C. family benefit bonus for the upcoming benefit year. This bonus will be paid alongside the B.C. family benefit by raising the annual B.C. family benefit amounts and income thresholds by 25 percent. This measure is being introduced to alleviate affordability pressures in the province. The first monthly bonus payment will be made in July 2024, and we expect that approximately 340,000 families will receive the B.C. family benefit bonus. This is 70 percent of all families in British Columbia.

The Income Tax Act is amended to exclude animation productions from the regional and distant location film and television tax credits. Animation productions will continue to be eligible for other film and television tax credits, such as the basic tax credits and the digital animation or visual effects and post-production services tax credits.

The regional and distant location tax credits are intended to help offset the additional costs for production activities outside of the designated Vancouver area, such as travel costs and higher wages. Animation productions will continue to be eligible for other film and television tax credits which provide considerable support to the sector in the range of 44 to 51 percent of labour costs.

Bill 3 further amends the Income Tax Act to extend the training tax credit for employers for three years to the end of 2027. The training tax credit for individuals is also being extended for one year to the end of 2025. The Income Tax Act is amended to extend the shipbuilding and ship repair industry tax credit for two years to the end of 2026, and the extension of these tax credits reaffirms government’s support for skilled-trades training in this province.

The Income Tax Act is further amended to exclude oil and gas exploration expenses as qualified expenses for the mining exploration tax credit. This change follows similar federal amendments to the mining flow-through share tax credit regime.

The bill amends the Income Tax Act to give applicants an additional six months to apply for a clean buildings tax credit certificate and extends the determination period for emergency benefit for workers who received a notice of redetermination dated after October 23, 2023. This will ensure that these applicants have sufficient time to obtain and provide supporting documents of eligibility for benefit.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to clarify certain terms and the application of federal provisions for provincial income tax purposes. This will also ensure that the province meets its obligations under the B.C.-Canada tax collection agreement.

Bill 3 amends the Insurance Premium Tax Act to ex­empt farmers from paying the tax if they are enrolled in provincial agricultural insurance programs offered under the Farm Income Insurance Act and the Insurance for Crops Act. The amendment ensures that the Insurance Premium Tax Act is only paid once on premiums under these programs.

Bill 3 authorizes retroactive regulations under the Carbon Tax Act for the purpose of amending the biomethane credit refund system. Specifically, the authority permits amendments to the biomethane credit refund rules to ensure that qualifying retail dealers can issue biomethane credits based on unsold biomethane inventory acquired up to 24 months prior to a reporting period.

These amendments will better reflect the realities of de­livering comprehensive biomethane blending programs as natural gas utilities rely on accumulating biomethane to meet seasonal fluctuations in demand. Increasing the amount of biomethane in B.C.’s energy supply will be essential in pursuing our CleanBC goals. These amendments will make the transition more affordable both for utilities and for consumers.

Bill 3 further authorizes retroactive regulations under the Provincial Sales Tax Act to clarify that solar, wind or water-based clean energy projects qualify for the production machinery and equipment PST exemption. Ensuring clean energy projects are eligible for this exemption will help businesses manage the costs of decarbonization in keeping with our CleanBC plan.

[2:20 p.m.]

The Provincial Sales Tax Act is amended to enable the director to provide a refund when a person buys goods from a seller who does not collect PST but then returns the goods to the seller despite having paid the PST.

The Provincial Sales Tax Act is further amended to reduce the availability of PST refunds, where a person acts as though they are the end-purchaser of goods but are actually acquiring the goods for export and resale outside British Columbia.

The bill includes retroactive amendments to the Provincial Sales Tax Act to clarify the definition of software for the purposes of the PST. This technical change ensures the legislation reflects the way the PST has always been administered.

Bill 3 amends the Carbon Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Provincial Sales Tax Act to clarify the director’s discretion to specify how tax returns and other documents must be filed. This will facilitate the Ministry of Finance’s move towards increasing electronic filing where appropriate.

The Carbon Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act and Provincial Sales Tax Act are further amended to harmonize offences and penalties under these statutes with other B.C. tax statutes. This will assist with administration of these taxes and encourage compliance.

The Motor Fuel Tax Act and Financial Administration Act are amended to enable B.C.’s regulations for interest payable under the international fuel tax agreement to automatically adopt interest rule changes.

And finally, Bill 3 amends multiple tax and revenue statutes to harmonize appeal provisions under those statutes. This is to ensure consistency for taxpayers when making an appeal under these statutes.

P. Milobar: I rise to speak to Bill 3, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

I would note that it would indicate that this is the first of a few budget measures implementation bills that we will be seeing through this session. Because despite what the language in the budget says, there are certain tax measures that are not included in this implementation bill. So it leads one to believe that there will be more budget implementation bills to come, and that’s not totally unusual to happen, absolutely.

This bill most certainly excludes any reference or language around the flipping tax that’s been talked about in the budget. Of course, we don’t know what those rules would be at this point. It’s a little disappointing, because we have a lot of time right now in the legislative schedule, it feels like, with not really any bills moving through the House. We would have had a lot of time to actually scrutinize that, and ask questions of government, had it actually been part of this budget measures implementation bill, as it was indicated in the budget it would be.

Unfortunately, as is the case with this government, we will likely see that right before the end of session, and it will be rammed through with not enough time for proper scrutiny or discussion as the bill.

We heard the minister talk about carbon tax. I recognize this is not her portfolio, although she is the Minister of Energy and Mines, so she fully understands carbon tax. But the carbon tax itself, and the increase on April 1, is not actually in this Budget Measures Implementation Act as well. So that will have to be held for another bill to come forward, perhaps part of the same bill as the flipping tax.

The same with the climate action tax credit. We don’t see what that will actually look like in this bill, moving forward. That is a problem in terms of trying to assess Bill 3 versus the overall budget and how those will have impacts on average people.

Because as we heard from our friend from Chilliwack in the previous bill, who seemed to think that tax increases aren’t impacting very many people in British Columbia, the news, maybe for the minister and others in government, is that things like raising carbon tax and other taxes in their bill and in their budget actually have a very direct impact to people’s daily lives.

Every time you turn your furnace on, it costs you more money. When you have gas bills coming that are $53 worth of fuel, of gas, to heat your home, and a carbon tax of $77 on that bill, it does impact your household budget quite significantly. And then when you consider that that carbon tax will be getting increased on April 1, it increases the impact to your home budget that much more.

[2:25 p.m.]

When you go to fill up at the pump…. We see measures in this around fuel and carbon credits and other accounting for fuels within the budget measures bill, Bill 3, but we don’t see a reduction of fuel taxes in British Columbia in this or in the budget itself.

Once again that directly impacts people on a daily basis in British Columbia, regardless of what your income level is, regardless of what your hourly wage is. In fact, it would disproportionately impact those with lower wages more than people with higher incomes. People with those lower wages trying to just simply get to and from work in a vehicle, because they don’t have transit in their area, would actually be just impacted much more by the provincial fuel tax, that’s 14½ cents a litre, than the person that’s a high-income earner. But apparently the government doesn’t think that way.

Only this government could think that adding $22 billion to the overall tax bill has somehow made things more affordable for British Columbians and that somehow it doesn’t impact people if they have a lower income level. It does. All of these government measures around taxation over the last seven years have a very direct result to peo­ple’s daily household budgets. When you live in a province that routinely has a rate of inflation higher than the rest of the country, that has a direct impact on people’s buying ability, the ability to access food.

I guess that is why, in the throne speech, this government took great pride in the fact that we have record numbers of students in Surrey needing to access food programs from the government because they can’t afford, in their own households, to provide for their children. That would seem to be a point of pride for this government, as we heard from the throne speech, from the budget and now on Bill 3, with the various budget measures that they’re implementing and ones that they’re not actually bringing forward at this time, if ever.

We will look forward to getting into great detail with the government on second reading of Bill 3 as we move forward to find out exactly what they have intended with some of the clauses on this bill. There are some very technical complexities that will come into play with some of the calculations around some of the areas.

It’s certainly concerning, when you see the missed op­portunity on the backdrop of an $89 billion spending budget, that their Budget Measures Implementation Act at this point is essentially non-monetary changes to some areas, things that truly, actually won’t impact people in their daily lives positively or negatively.

It’s excluding some of the more impactful taxes for a later date and a later discussion, as opposed to being able to see exactly what those taxes would mean for people in their daily lives, be it carbon tax, be it provincial fuel taxes or any other taxes like that. Again, the lower income level actually would be more disproportionately impacted by those taxes than people with a higher income.

I would suggest to you that somebody earning mini­mum wage probably does be very hyper-aware of how far they’re driving in any given day, how much fuel that will take, what that cost of that fuel is and what happens when gas prices go up 5 or 10 cents a litre overnight at the pumps. I would suggest a great many of those people are very aware.

I would also suggest that if you’re earning a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year and are on the upper end of the tax bracket already, you’re less concerned if you’re still planning on driving that day or not. So that disconnect that seems to be coming from the cabinet of this government versus what everyday British Columbians are going through in their household is concerning, and it’s one that we will canvass greatly at second reading of Bill 3 but also other bills moving forward.

I thank you for the time on this bill, Madam Chair.

Hon. D. Coulter: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak to this bill. It’s the second time I get to speak today.

I just want to see if everyone in this chamber can agree that British Columbia is a wonderful place to live. Can we agree on that? I guess not, because we have taxes on luxury automobiles and cigarettes.

We were talking about, originally….

Confused looks on your faces. You’re talking about in­creased taxes. These are the types of increased taxes that you constantly talk about. They are listed. This is what’s listed in your complaints about taxes.

The Minister of Finance has been clear, very clear, that people in middle-income tax brackets and at the lower tax brackets are paying less in tax today than under the former government. It’s true.

Interjection.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Coulter: Well, we can pull up to the Starbucks with a smoke in our mouth, in our luxury vehicle and freeze the wages of the barista before you…. That’s the kind of B.C. that some people want to live in, and we don’t want to do that on this side.

On the confusion with the taxes that you have, the em­ployer health tax has been halved. Your Finance critic had to erase a tweet because he could not read a budget and what the taxes were.

Amendments are proposed to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act to establish a First Nations equity financing special account. It’s very important. Government is taking action to support First Nations and the B.C. business sector in developing strong economic development partnerships through the development of a provincial First Nations equity financing network.

As part of this work, these amendments will establish a First Nations equity financing special account with a $10 million inaugural balance to help support the immediate capacity needs for those First Nations actively considering equity participation in projects, where there is shared interest and readiness, with the province.

As well, the special account provides for provincial government costs to operationalize the First Nations equity financing program. This special account also allows government to provide provincial guarantees for equity loans undertaken by First Nations for the purpose of acquiring an equity interest in priority projects in the province.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Consistent with the approach in other jurisdictions, the special account will have a cumulative loan guarantee limit of $1 billion, set by regulation and by policy, and will be reviewed annually. This special account inaugural balance is a starting point, and additional resources will be added to this account as Treasury Board determines requirements to support approved projects and financing plans developed by the province and First Nations in partnership with the business community. Throughout the coming months, the province will consult and cooperate with First Nations and organizations and will engage business leaders across B.C. to help further develop the First Na­tions equity financing framework.

The new equity financing tools through this special account are intended to support inclusive project partnerships as we continue to support First Nations’ self-determination and meaningful participation in economic opportunities.

Part 2 of Bill 3 amends several statutes to implement the tax measures in Budget 2024. Bill 3 amends the Nisg̱a’a Final Agreement Act, the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act and various other statutes to implement a new legisla­tive framework to broadly enable modern treaty nations to self-determine their own approaches to assessment and property taxation on their respective Nisg̱a’a lands and treaty lands.

The province, modern treaty nations and First Nations who are advanced in the B.C. treaty negotiations process have since 2021 been working in partnership to collaboratively develop a new approach to treaty property taxation, based on principles of self-determination, flexibility and uniqueness.

In Budget 2023, we implemented an important first step by enabling the Nisg̱a’a Nation and modern treaty First Nations to self-determine property tax exemptions for their citizens or members on Nisg̱a’a lands and on treaty lands. Effective as of the 2025 taxation year, the province will fully withdraw from property taxation on Nisg̱a’a lands and modern treaty nations’ treaty lands and will no longer impose a requirement for property taxation to apply.

The new legislative framework will enable modern treaty nations to determine if or when it is appropriate for property tax to apply on their core governance lands, including whether and how to exercise their own assessment and property taxation laws and policies. This puts exclusive decision-making for most property interests on Nisg̱a’a lands and treaty lands into the hands of modern treaty nations, enabling them to design approaches that best reflect their unique circumstances.

[2:35 p.m.]

This new approach is incredibly important and maintains important elements of the previous approach. Modern treaty nations will continue to keep the money raised from property taxation on their respective lands, or treaty lands, and will continue to contribute to applicable provincial services, such as regional hospital districts.

The province will also, by agreement, continue to dele­gate the authority to tax members, holders of property in­terests on Nisg̱a’a lands and treaty lands to modern treaty nations. I’m sure everyone in this chamber can agree that is very important for the self-determination of First Nations and modern treaty nations.

This bill, Bill 3, is incredibly important for us to advance the budget this year. It is a budget that supports people. It is a budget that recognizes that people are our greatest resource. It is a budget that is going to build our economy. I know the other side seems to have issues with those goals, maybe, or they think there’s a different way.

With that, I will yield the floor to whoever else wants to speak.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, that closes the second reading of debate. We’ve got to go to the minister first to move and finish that second reading.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move second reading of the bill now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024, 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. D. Coulter: I would like to call a short recess, say ten or 15 minutes.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess, and we’ll resume once the acting House Leader provides the directions.

The House recessed from 2:38 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. We will call this House back into session from that recess.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Coulter: I call Committee of Supply for the Attorney General in this chamber.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

The Chair: For those joining us in the gallery, we are going to be starting on the estimates debate of the Ministry of Attorney General shortly. We’re just waiting for the appropriate people to join us in the room so we can get going.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $729,324,000 (continued).

M. Lee: I wanted to turn the questioning to a specific example of a concern and to see how HAT 1, as a revised policy for Crown counsel, would be utilized.

As we’ve seen here in Victoria for many years, there have been longstanding concerns about the antisemitic and extremist views, inciting violence against Jews, made by Sheikh Younus Kathrada of Victoria, which he continues to make and disseminate. There has been no prosecution of Mr. Kathrada here in British Columbia after many years of well-documented hate speech since he became leader of the Dar Al-Ihsan Islamic Centre in 2018. I know that I’ve heard from many in the province who are concerned about the ongoing statements that Mr. Kathrada has been making, including since October 7.

Given the continued rise of antisemitism in this prov­ince, Mr. Kathrada is a leading example of an individual that continues to put out antisemitic and hateful statements, which are extreme and incite violence against Jewish people. Will the Attorney General see that HAT 1, as a policy, will be an effective measure to deal with the kind of antisemitic communication that Mr. Kathrada has continued to put out?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think I join with all British Columbians in condemning hate speech and particularly those that would promote antisemitism and hateful comments towards the Jewish community. I cannot comment in this forum on prosecution and investigation services of one individual person. I think, as the member knows, before Crown counsel can act on it, we need a police investigation and for them to issue a report to Crown counsel for charges.

I just want to urge anyone who has knowledge of a hate crime that’s happening to report it to the police. We want to make sure that these things are taken seriously.

M. Lee: I will come back to that if I get the opportunity to with the time that I have.

I would like to now go to a straight confirmation on be­half of my colleague, the member for Richmond North Centre. We know that the member for Richmond North Centre, as our shadow minister for multiculturalism and anti-racism, as well as arts and culture, has been a strong advocate, particularly in the face of anti-Asian hate. We know that she herself, with the former Leader of the Official Opposition and our current leader, as well, has been pursuing government to put in place a provincial hotline to report acts of racism and hate in multiple languages.

I’d like to ask…. There has been mention, of course, including in last year’s estimates, as to the move forward by the government towards putting that in place. Yet we still haven’t seen it. When will that hotline be in place?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question. This is something that the whole team has put a lot of effort into that I’m very proud about. This new resource for community that will be launching later this spring is a racist incident helpline. That will be a trauma-informed multilingual service that provides a culturally safe platform for people who either witnessed or experienced a hate crime to report that incident.

Not only that. Those people that are answering the phones will be trained to provide supports to that person, and a soft handoff to a community group also will be funded to include counselling for that individual.

[2:55 p.m.]

The help line will be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., accessible by phone, and I mentioned a multilingual service, toll-free. We’ve identified an agency, and we are looking forward to launching it later this spring.

M. Lee: What is the budget allocation funding for this new hotline?

Hon. N. Sharma: Chair, $3.266 million is allocated in this budget for that. I’m sorry that I missed that before.

M. Lee: Going to the area of the throne speech…. This is one of two examples where I would invite the Attorney General, to the extent that she’s able, to just share. Given the rapid nature of legislation…. We’re in the third week of our ten-week legislative session, and it is fairly compressed.

In the throne speech, it was announced that the government would take further action to protect schools from disruptive protests, much like what was done for hospitals during the pandemic. But we see, of course, that Bill 20, which was passed in 2021, also gives protections to schools through regulation-making power as well.

What are the limits to the current legislation in respect of schools?

Hon. N. Sharma: If I could ask the member to give us a little bit more clarification on Bill 20 and the context before we answer the question.

M. Lee: Bill 20, which I’m referring to, was back in 2021. It was entitled Access to Services (COVID-19) Act. It was presented by the former Attorney General.

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the clarification.

The bill that he’s referring to was repealed. Actually, it was time-limited, and it was repealed on July 1, 2023. So it’s no longer in force.

M. Lee: In terms of the upcoming legislation that we’ve introduced in this session, then, what is the scope of that legislation? Will it extend to also cover, for example, Jewish day schools that have been targeted in relation to the October 7 terrorist attack by the Hamas?

[3:00 p.m.]

The Chair: If I might, Member, it’s generally not the tradition in this House to ask about legislation that’s being introduced at this time, aside from when it’s the legislation itself. So if we can ask questions about the upcoming legislation when that legislation is introduced, that would probably be more appropriate.

M. Lee: Well, let me rephrase the question, Mr. Chair.

What is the Attorney General doing to protect Jewish day schools from various attacks, protests that might be highly disruptive to those schools?

Hon. N. Sharma: The Ministry of Attorney General is responsive to reports to Crown counsel. The stage, I think, that the member is referring to is before that, so it would be the police receiving, investigating and issuing a report to Crown counsel before it would fall into the side of the justice arm of that, which is the Ministry of Attorney General and the B.C. Prosecution Service.

What I would say is: I think the question that the member is asking is better placed towards the Solicitor General or the Ministry of Education.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. Certainly, as we go through the various interplay….

I appreciate that even in respect of my brief briefing yesterday, the focus around courthouse capital investment, for example, is better directed to the Minister of Citizens’ Services. I do hope to have the opportunity to join our critic for that purpose, schedule permitting, and to do the same for Public Safety and Solicitor General.

If I may now, I’d like to turn to the statement…. We’ve seen, in various statements made…. For example, in terms of bail policy, there was a media statement, a mandatory direction from ADAG to Crown counsel that they must seek the detention of a repeat violent offender. That’s a statement, yet in much of the discussion — which, as we know, is ongoing, including in today’s question period, relating to prolific offenders — it was indicated that the term “prolific offenders” has no clear legal definition under the Criminal Code and, therefore, can mean different things to different people.

These were statements that have been made in relationship to how we address the ongoing concerns relating to prolific offenders. Certainly in the case of the challenge of seeking detention of repeat violent offenders, in the absence of a clear legal definition, how do the Attorney General and Crown counsel proceed to really focus on that challenge?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I would just like to direct the member’s attention to the Crown counsel policy related to that. It has a very clear definition, based on the law, of a “repeat violent offender.” It mentions sections of the Criminal Code. I’ll just read it: “A repeat violent offender includes anyone with one or more recent convictions for an offence against the person, under Part VIII of the Criminal Code, or an offence involving a weapon, as defined under section 2 of the Criminal Code.”

It very specifically has a definition, based on the law. I will also say that when we advocated for changes and led the way, nationally, on changes to the Criminal Code with respect to bail, we were advocating for very clear definitions of what we saw as a repeat violent offence — previous use of a weapon, for example — and were very, very detailed with respect to what we saw as a repeat violent offender and what we asked for in the Criminal Code.

M. Lee: I was going to go to page 3 and over to page 4 of the bail policy in a moment, but since the Attorney General referred to the federal amendments that came out in January of 2024, could I ask: with the recommendations that the Attorney General was making, have they all been met, in her view, by those changes?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think, to put it in context, B.C. led the way when it came to the national conversation related to bail reform. Through that were many conversations that I personally had with the federal Minister of Justice, along with my predecessors.

We did not get everything that we asked for, and I’ll give one example of that. One of the suggestions that came through a conversation with the Minister of Justice at the time was that there be an expedited review process for bail determinations when Crown had sought detention, just so that the case law would develop with respect to detention and bail orders.

M. Lee: Can the Attorney General expand on that re­commendation? Certainly, as I referred to earlier, relating to the process and timeliness of the justice system, timeliness is important. We’ve seen in the area of bail reform that there is compression.

We see examples in the U.K., for example, where it has been noted that the number of guilty pleas has actually decreased by over 30 percent. There is a concern raised within the U.K. justice system that criminals are effectively gaming the justice system because the judicial process is logjammed. So this is another consideration in terms of when the minister talks about expediting review for a bail determination.

I know, as well, that there is a concern relating to pretrial detention, the effects that that has. Obviously, there’s a lot there in terms of what’s under the Charter and what’s under the Jordan case. But if I can just ask the Attorney General to comment on what she has been seeing as the need for expedited review for bail detention. And what are the impediments for the Attorney General to enable that systematically through Crown counsel or otherwise?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: What would be required for the…. One of the changes I mentioned before was Criminal Code changes, so we wouldn’t be able to do that on our own. The idea was to have a quick, higher-court review of case law so we could develop the bail policy a little bit more in this province.

We are doing a lot of things when it comes to, I think, one the member was talking about, which was getting to court and court hearings faster and preventing Jordan stays. In our budget, we have invested $19 million on a virtual bail policy. The policy of the virtual bail is using technology to help bail hearings not only happen quicker, but also free up courtroom space so we can get to the trials and the things that need to happen in the courtroom.

Virtual bail is now…. Through this money, it will be enhanced, be rolled out throughout the province. That’s a significant investment in court modernization that helps to make sure we have timely trials.

The BCPS has also put into place many initiatives to try to get the number of Jordan stays down, and they’ve been successful in that. That includes enhanced Crown ownership; file ownership to reduce file churn; provincewide quality standards for proactive criminal case management, including front-end disclosure and online charge assessment; increased flexibility on the use of direct indictments; implementation of a provincewide electronic file closing survey to gather business intelligence on material process and file developments; and the implementation of a major case management model to bring a project management approach to the largest prosecutions. So just some of the many interventions and changes to the justice system to make it operate more effectively.

M. Lee: One of the points that was made in last year’s estimates to my predecessor, the member for Abbotsford West, in his capacity as shadow minister for the Attorney General, was an indication by the Attorney General that there were, in terms of measures that the government is taking, additional resources.

One of the additional resources, apart from what the Attorney General just referred to, is the hiring of a further 40 individuals in the Crown counsel group. Could I ask the Attorney General: what is the status of that hire? How many are Crown counsel prosecutors themselves versus administrative staff, and what is the budget item relating to that?

Hon. N. Sharma: There’s $8.5 million in the budget to support this, and that was for 42 positions. I’m told by the head of the Prosecution Service that they are full. And that’s 21 Crown counsel and 21 professional staff.

M. Lee: Just to confirm, when was that put in place in terms of the actual hires themselves?

Hon. N. Sharma: The big hiring was done between Jan­uary and May of last year, so largely by the middle…. I think they were different positions at different times. But the middle of last year, the positions were filled.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: Part of the indication of how government is currently attempting to deal with this challenge has been, as the Attorney General has described…. In terms of virtual bail hearings and additional resources, have we actually seen an improvement in terms of addressing prolific offenders and the number of accused persons that are being dealt with? That’s my question.

I will say that, as I’m sure the Attorney General is aware, there was a freedom-of-information request that was responded to from last July of 2023. That response came on September 12, 2023, and sets out data in respect of bail hearings for accused persons in custody, including comparing the periods of fall of 2022 to the winter of 2023 and the spring of 2023. We recognize, of course, in the context of that, the new bail policy that came forward was in November of 2022.

Has there actually been an improvement in ensuring we don’t have this revolving door of what has been termed and referred to as a catch-and-release system? Where are the measures that actually demonstrate that improvement?

Hon. N. Sharma: The member raised, I think, two very important government initiatives — one is ReVOII, the repeat violent offender initiative, and the other is virtual bail — and asked about the impact of those on the system.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’d like to spend some time talking about that. Not only, with the repeat offender initiative, were those 12 hubs set up really quickly across the province…. I think the member asked a question previously about how quickly the Crown counsel were hired, but that’s a testament to that program as well, because those Crown counsel were dedicated to the repeat violent offender program.

Those 12 hubs have been operating across the province now since May. I visited some of these hubs across the province, and I have to say how dedicated that team of staff is. What they are doing is focusing on the most repeat violent offenders that were referred into the program. It’s a probation officer, Crown counsel and a police officer that are dedicated to figure out how to make sure that these individuals are dealt with in a way that keeps communities safe and that breaks the cycle of crime for that individual.

Some preliminary results I have heard. I visited, for example, the hub in Prince George, where there was an individual that was perpetually being released. When he was released, he was not able to access the medication he needed to stabilize himself. The ReVOII team kicked in, in that situation, and now that person is on the medication that they need to stabilize themselves. The community is safer from that individual, and that individual is in a better position.

Also, with respect to another story I heard from the ReVOII teams in Surrey, there was an individual that was responsible for 100 calls a month to first responders. After entering the ReVOII program, it has been four months, and this person is responsible for zero calls. These are the exact interventions into our system that we’ve made, with key individuals with the right experience, to help address that issue.

The second thing that the member raised was virtual bail. That’s a key technological intervention into the justice system that started during COVID, which really helps to make sure that bail hearings are done not only in a timely way but in a way that frees up court time, so that the courthouses, the courtrooms can be used for the serious matters that they need to do, to make sure that criminal trials are held in quicker ways.

Both of those are very important interventions that have helped the justice system in B.C.

M. Lee: When I look at the results for what was referred to as manually collected data for the measure that is that at least one of the accused’s files dealt with a violent offence, the percentage of hearings where the Crown sought a detention order went from 30 percent in the fall of 2022, to 28 percent in the winter of 2023, to 27 percent in the spring of 2023.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The percentage of hearings where a detention order was granted is still at a low percentage: 12 percent. This is since the time that the government and the Attorney General put forward the new policy in November of 2022, yet we’re not seeing an actual improvement on dealing with the accused for bail hearings, in the context of violent offences.

Is the actual, revised policy having any intended effect here?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think the data that the member is referring to really underlined the reasons that we made the choices that we did.

The Crown counsel cannot go above…. They answer to an independent judiciary, as is our justice system, and the judges apply the law. This is why we asked for changes to the bail policy with respect to repeat violent offenders, which took too long to come into force. It wasn’t until January of this year that they were in force and law of the land.

It’s the reason we, as a province, led that advocacy. We asked for it earlier from the federal government. Unfortunately, they took longer than we wanted them to.

M. Lee: We had a discussion previously, even in the area of hate crimes, about the policies in the Crown counsel manual. It does give guidance to Crown counsel. We’ve had much discussion in this House about the need for directives from the Attorney General when it comes to repeat prolific violent offenders in our province, and we continue to see the challenges.

As the Attorney General confirmed, there have been the refinements that the Attorney General has sought federally, other than expedited reviews, which we can come back to in terms of timeliness here. I do understand that that is a component of what needs to be addressed as well.

The government’s own data…. I do also recognize the nature of the data tracking that is being done by the Ministry of Attorney General. I think it’s very important that this data is shared, even if it’s in response to an FOI request. But it’s the kind of data that helps British Columbians understand and maintain confidence, hopefully, in the administration of justice in our province.

The revised bail policy, which I’d like to get into more in detail in a moment, was brought in place in November of 2022. We are now sitting in March of 2024, 15 months later, yet the data actually shows a decrease in certain areas, areas that are important.

I will name another one, which is…. There is information provided. The measure is that at least one file dealt with a violent offence, and at least one file dealt with an outstanding warrant. The percentage of hearings where a Crown sought a detention order went from 31 percent in the fall of 2022 to 25 percent in the winter of 2022 to 21 percent in the spring of 2023. That is a 10 percent decrease where the Crown sought a detention order.

Can the Attorney General explain why there was a decrease, as set out in this information?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: If I could just ask the member to help us understand exactly, and in a little more detail, the time period and the exact offence that he’s referring to. That chart is a multi-layered one that he’s referring to. I think we just need more clarity on that.

M. Lee: If it helps, before we moved chambers, I had a copy that I could share. I did bring one for reference purposes, and I can just pass it over to the Attorney General.

I didn’t highlight it, though, but I’ll just direct her. Well, I will take the extra moment to highlight the exact column on the chart.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I would agree with the member. As he mentioned, it’s really good that the Prosecution Service is collecting this type of data. I think that’s a good thing in understanding our justice system. I would just caution to say that it’s hard to pick shorter periods of time, because they just started to understand what the trends are.

I’m informed by the head of B.C. Prosecution Service — who’s right here behind me — that in their next round of data, which is for the next two periods, that number that the member is referring to goes up to 25 percent and then 24 percent. It’s hard to pick at different months, but I think what we will see, over time, is a better understanding of the general trends and where the justice system is with respect to these hearings.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. Obviously, they’re limited to the time periods for which they were collected.

My overall concern, of course, is the continued trend down. As we want to encourage the action by the Attorney General and this government in dealing with and addressing the challenge that we see in our communities and our streets for people, British Columbians who feel very unsafe, we need to recognize and, hopefully, communicate out to the public as to how this is being addressed. I appreciate that this is a fairly involved table. I have isolated a number of different indicators.

I would ask, when we come back and talk about timeliness in the judicial system, where there may be a holdup on considerations for justices, the courts themselves, to determine bail hearings and whether to make a determination: how is the timeliness of getting through the process identified, measured and shared in the reports that I see, including the annual service reports? I wanted to hear, directly from the Attorney General, as to where the focus is on that and where it’s presented.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The timeliness of bail hearings is set by the criminal law. It’s required to happen within 24 hours. Then after that, the times are set out by the sitting judge that’s overseeing that.

M. Lee: Really, the concern lies in the recognition, by the courts, as to if there is a detention order pending trial. The nature of the timing of getting through that process — is that a focus for the Attorney General?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’d just ask the member for some clarity about which process he’s referring to after detention.

M. Lee: The period of detention pending trial.

Hon. N. Sharma: The legal parameters provide very clear timelines for process. I’ll start with…. If a person is detained, and it’s prolonged, they have a right of statutory reviews at certain periods of time. Because of the constitutional rights of the individual, there is an ultimate timeline of 18 months for the provincial court and 30 months for the Supreme Court. Those are all the time parameters that we must abide by.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate that the Attorney General made reference earlier to some of the tracking that’s done that I see in some of the reports — table 7, for example — and what I think is in the annual report for the ministry, “judicial stays of proceedings.” It certainly indicates some focus on the outside dates, where, as the minister just described, 18 and 30 months….

We are talking about…. For example, this measure I see, which measures the number of times in the fiscal year that judges stayed criminal charges prosecuted by the BCPS due to unreasonable delay…. That is consistent with the focus the Attorney General has on the outside dates.

Certainly, of course, we don’t want to have a justice system that sees those who are accused of certain criminal offences not being prosecuted, having been charged, be­cause of unreasonable delay. It’s not good for that individual, but it’s also not good to the victims of those crimes and their families and the public. And of course, it undermines the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.

What I’m asking, though, is: where is the focus of the Attorney General and her ministry on reducing the times? Not the outside dates, but how is the justice system in this province able to reduce the time that an individual is in detention pending trial? Where is the measure on that? And what is the status and the progress of that measure?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m going to start by saying that one is too many. One judicial stay because of being too long in our timelines to get to trial is too many. We have made significant investments and progress when it comes to this because it’s a big focus of ours, of the Ministry of Attorney General, and I know of the chief justice and all of the judges of our province.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’m going to talk a little bit about that. The last fiscal year we had four judicial stays, and I want to put that in contrast to other provinces that have dozens, if not hundreds, of judicial stays because of timeliness. This is because of a targeted focus of our people to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

As of September 2023, if the time to schedule a criminal adult trial was less than two days…. For two to four days, a delay of seven months. Five days or more is eight months. Sorry, if it’s less than two days, it was 6.1 months. Two to four days was 7.6 months. Five or more days was eight months.

The Prosecution Service has done a considerable amount of work not only in court modernization that our court services branch is doing every day but also in targeted investments and enhancements in the process to make sure that we’re reducing our Jordan stays to zero.

That means, and I’ll list these: enhanced Crown file ownership to reduce file turn; provincewide quality standards for proactive criminal case management, including front-end disclosure and online charge assessment; in­creased flexibility on the use of direct indictments; implementation of a provincewide electronic file closing survey to gather business intelligence on material processes and file developments; implementation of a major case management model to bring a project management approach to the largest prosecutions.

Also, as a part of the ongoing process of continuing improvement, there are reforms that were made to streamlining administrative processes — for example, the administrative business centre, which provides staff with centralized business documentation that’s updated continuously; the implementation of a Crown counsel scheduling system, which facilitates integrated electronic case scheduling with the provincial court and supports the long-term sustainability of Crown file ownership; the implementation of a comprehensive bail program, in which the BCPS assumed responsibility for all after-hours charge assessments and bail process across the province; implementation of a comprehensive disclosure strategy aimed at increasing efficiencies and reducing delays in criminal disclosure.

These are just some of the improvements in process and investments in technology we’ve made to really address this situation.

I want to also say that, although one is too many, we are doing by orders of magnitude better than other provinces with respect to this.

M. Lee: I would say that earlier the Attorney General referred to this and then in her long recitation there. In terms of the virtual bail hearings, I certainly, in my pre­vious capacity as the shadow minister for Attorney General, had recognized the work of Deputy Minister Richard Fyfe and his group in moving forward with the judicial system to make those adaptations.

I would suggest that this is still an area of great focus, as the Attorney General has described. I think it’s important for the public to understand those time frames and how our judicial system is addressing them in terms of their performance.

Even as we talk about that, if that…. With recognition I’ve been back in this role for the last two weeks, in my further consultations with members of the legal community in this province, this is something that I’ve heard identified as a concern still. So I will continue, of course, to follow on with the Attorney General about timeliness.

Even as we say that, in view of the adjustments and modifications that the Attorney General has set out, it is still a concern in terms of what we see. We have gone over the results of the FOI request, which in a number of areas indicates a decrease in percentage of hearings where the Crown has sought detention orders. This means if the percentage is as low as 21 percent or even 24 percent, as the Attorney General referred to….

I appreciate, again, the role of Crown counsel versus the role of the Attorney General in the judiciary, but the point is that the data is the data.

[4:00 p.m.]

It shows that at least in 76 percent of the instances, de­tention orders were not sought. This is for files with a violent offence and where there is a file with an outstanding warrant. This is the revolving door of justice that we are seeing in our province. This is the concern around the catch-and-release system.

I appreciate the Attorney General explaining some of the adaptations of the judicial system again, which I will continue to follow on with. But the data doesn’t actually provide and show the performance here in the face of something that I know was canvassed at length by the member for Abbotsford West with the Attorney General in last estimates, which is: how do we even measure what is viewed to be measures around public safety?

I know that under the plan of the government, there’s certain accountability to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I hope to have the opportunity to join my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie in that set of estimates. But clearly, the Attorney General has her responsibilities as well, when it comes to addressing public safety, as we’ve been talking about here.

I know that last estimates…. I referred to this, as well, in my budget response speech, in terms of the updated statistics from StatsCan that were issued in July 2023, post last year’s estimates. There has been an increase of over 37 percent in violent crimes in British Columbia under this Premier and government.

Overall crime has surged by nearly 10 percent. In fact, British Columbia has seen the largest single increase in homicides in Canada in 2022. The number of homicide victims has risen by over 72 percent under this Premier and government. The youth crime rate in British Columbia has skyrocketed, with an increase of 11 percent in that last year.

These are the statistics that are there. It is a province-by-province comparison as well. Is the Attorney General concerned about the state of public safety in our province, given, and in view of, these statistics?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m sure the member will be able to dive in pretty deeply with respect to crime stats with the Solicitor General and the team at PSSG, as they’re the ones that are the keepers of and experts on crime stats.

What I will say to the question that the member asked is: yes, I care about public safety. Yes, I care about making sure that crime is dealt with appropriately in this province. That’s exactly why we’ve been making key investments where we have. It’s why I have advocated for specific changes to the Criminal Code. I am continually advocating.

As the member would know, based on the exchange we had about hate crimes, I’m in communication with the Minister of Justice federally about changes to that Criminal Code that will make it better for our ability to go after hate crime in this province.

With any type of crime in this province, we at the Ministry of Attorney General have a role to play in making sure that communities are safe, making sure that crime is dealt with appropriately and that the justice system is operating appropriately in response to crimes in our communities.

M. Lee: The question I’m asking, though, is for the Attor­ney General to address her level of concern in the face of the statistics which show rising violent crimes, homicides and youth crime rate in British Columbia. These are three indicators. I would give some other indicators — and I appreciate the Attorney General’s response — but what I’m looking to the Attorney General to address is her level of assessment and concern about whether the measures that she has attempted to put forward are actually working in the face of increased violent crimes.

We see in the latest Vancouver police department report — issued in February, last month — for example, that vio­lent crimes continued to increase in the city of Vancouver, with 6,251 crimes in 2023. Sexual offences have also increased by 10.5 percent, from 641 incidents to 708 in 2023.

I will note as well, to the Attorney General, that when we talk about the city of Vancouver…. District 4 is the area I represent for Vancouver-Langara. The Leader of the Official Opposition is in Vancouver-Quilchena. The Minister of Environment is in Vancouver-Fairview, and there’s the new riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain and the Pre­mier’s riding in Vancouver–Point Grey. District 4 itself has seen an 8.8 percent increase — the largest increase, in fact, in the whole city of Vancouver.

This is a concerning trend. The ten-year trend in the city of Vancouver only goes up. That’s what we’ve seen specifically in the last seven years since 2017. Again to the Attorney General, is she not concerned that the measures that she’s putting in place just aren’t working and that we continue to see a rise in violent crimes and repeat offenders? What is the minister’s own assessment about how this ministry is doing to address this concern?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The member raises stats, and I’m sure that can be canvassed in detail, as I mentioned, with the Solicitor General and his team. But I will say that stats can show many things. The VPD stats also said that unprovoked stranger assaults decreased by 75 percent between 2021 and 2023 and that car thefts are down by 18 percent.

I am very focused, along with my team, on making sure that our justice system is focused on repeat violent offenders, is focused on the harms that they do to community. I mentioned a little bit about the ReVOII team before.

I want to say that the member asked pretty directly if I believe that those investments are making an impact, and the answer to that is yes. I’ve met with a few of the 12 hubs, and I plan on meeting with more of the ReVOII teams across this province and that dedicated team of people that are focused on the most repeat violent offenders in our province. There are close to 400 of them now that are in that program.

That dedicated resource, I know, was in place in 2012, and the functioning of that showed a reduction in prolific offending by 40 percent. Unfortunately, that program was cut, but we’ve reinstated that very quickly. Those 12 repeat violent offender intervention initiative hubs that are in place are right now, every day, focused on reducing the impact of repeat violent offenders in this province. That investment is proving to show very good results.

The other thing I will say is it’s not the only thing. We have the justice system. We have PSSG. We have the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. We have the Ministry of Housing. Many ministries are working together through our safer communities action plan.

What you see in this budget is key investments in every aspect of that plan to make sure all of the things we need to do to keep communities safer are there. We stood up key interventions in our justice system. I talked about one. I could talk about many others that we’ve done. But we’ve also worked in partnership with other ministries to tackle this problem to make sure that communities are safe.

M. Lee: Given the time I have, I need to complete this section of the estimates process on this topic with some more additional questions. But I know the Attorney General and I can talk at length relating to our difference in view in terms of the statistics and appreciate that this is an ongoing concern.

The reason why we continually raise this is because we hear from so many British Columbians and constituents that they don’t feel safe. They don’t feel safe in the context of what they see on their streets and in their neighbourhoods and in their schoolyards. Having said all that, I do want to turn to the actual bail policy itself, November 22, 2022.

On page 3, the Attorney General has already cited a specific reference to what a repeat violent offender means for the purpose of the policy. I would say, as well, that the heading of this section — as was stated in the news release that was put out, the media statement — is, of course: “Protecting public safety and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.”

[4:15 p.m.]

This goes to the core element of what the Attorney General and Crown counsel, throughout their policies, need to ensure. I certainly recognize that.

My first question on this to the Attorney General is…. The wording in the policy makes reference to…. When we’re talking about a repeat violent offender who’s charged with an offence involving a weapon, Crown counsel must seek their detention, unless they are satisfied, having re­gard to all the circumstances, that the risk to public safety posed by the accused release can be reduced to an acceptable level by bail conditions. What is meant by and what is the test for acceptable level?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: To just start with, putting it in context, I think the member knows about the way our legal system works. We can’t unduly unfetter the Crown counsel in their decision-making. But they’re highly trained, and they’re bound by many things. We have talked about it at length. The first is the Criminal Code of Canada.

They will look at the facts of the case, any circumstances related to it, and the plan, including the case law. In terms of what sets acceptable levels or not, they’re guided by all of those things, including the Criminal Code and the case law of Canada, in determining that.

M. Lee: Recognizing the roles here, are there instances where, when we are talking about a difference in view, Crown counsel has sought detention because the risks to public safety cannot be reduced to acceptable levels by bail conditions, yet the court has a difference in view, of course, and the court rules there are bail conditions imposed? But in the view of the Crown counsel, that is actually not at an acceptable level, and there is a risk to public safety posed by the accused’s release.

In those situations or examples or instances, has Crown counsel appealed the release of violent criminals so that that risk is addressed?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: There’s a statutory right of review to a detention order, and it’s regularly sought by Crown counsel. So that’s a way they can challenge an order. I’m told by the B.C. Prosecution Service that it’s pretty regularly used by our Crown counsel. Sorry, a review of a release when we sought detention, just to clarify. That’s the review.

M. Lee: Sorry. I didn’t hear completely. If the Attorney General could just repeat her last part of her answer, just so I can clearly hear it.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m sorry. I should have said it’s a statutory right of review when a detention was sought but there was a release. So the Crown counsel has a right of review in that circumstance.

M. Lee: To clarify, I believe the Attorney General had said previously to that that the statutory right to review is regularly deployed by Crown counsel. Is that the case?

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s what I’m told.

M. Lee: I just wanted to come back to the policy in this section of the BAI 1 policy under this section heading. Of course, we see there’s a focus in the way the policy is written, relating to repeat violent offenders. But there’s recognition that for public safety, victims and witnesses, including child victims and witnesses, intimate partner violence, sexual offences, adult victims, vulnerable victims and witnesses…. When I look at those sub-policies or related policies….

For example, I would just turn to the first one, CHI 1, issued on May 20, 2022, child victims and witnesses. These other policies have separate bail sections and bail consideration sections. I would expect that the reason why this policy is drafted this way is it cross-refers to the fact that there are additional bail considerations in these policies.

When I look at the bail policy for child victims and witnesses, there is a requirement that Crown counsel shall request a warrant wherever it is necessary to seek a detention order or conditions of release to protect a child victim or other potential victims.

I also note that where the offence is of a sexual or violent nature, relevant factors should be communicated to the court to ensure protection of the public. I know that there are many examples that are disturbing to members of the public amongst areas of offence for repeat offenders.

[4:30 p.m.]

Those areas of offence are not just violent offenders, those that are convicted of repeat offences involving a wea­pon. There are other offences under the Criminal Code which are set out in these other policies.

With respect to children, as we know, there was a significant level of concern raised recently, including from my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission today in question period.

As I understand it, there’s a bail hearing being held tomorrow for Taylor Dueck. I appreciate the Attorney General’s response in question period today. I wanted to follow on in view of these policies, in both elements, that in the case of this individual or a repeat sex offender against children, there would be a need to seek a detention order or conditions of release to protect other potential victims and that there is a need that relevant risk factors be communicated to the court to ensure protection of the public.

It’s the protection of the public, of course, that the member for Kelowna-Mission talked about at length in a very concerning way, and of course, unfortunately, regrettably, talked about how an 11-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by this predator despite his prior convictions and despite the fact that the public had no warning of this individual being back out in the community.

I would like to give the Attorney General an opportunity to respond in this context, in the context of the discussion we’ve been having about the architecture of these bail policies and how they’re being applied.

I appreciate there was some comment made by the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, as I recall, about some investigation. But however the Attorney General chooses to reply to this, I do think it’s important to understand the workings of these policies, because it’s these policies that this government points to in terms of how it’s addressing this concern.

I’d like to give the Attorney General an opportunity to help explain and raise public awareness and understanding as to how this particular bail policy applies to a repeat sex offender for children, even as we saw the concern relating to Taylor Dueck in Kelowna.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The member asked a very specific question about the bail policy that we have in this prov­ince, particularly in relation to repeat sexual offenders for children. It’s obviously a very serious crime in this prov­ince. An accused that’s going through this…. The bail policy reflects how seriously that’s taken.

If you look at page 3 there…. I’m not going to be able to talk about all the complexities and details of the policy. I will refer the member to the fact it is not only contained in this, but it’s contained in great detail with specific policies related to child victims and witnesses, intimate partner violence, sexual offences of adult victims and vulnerable victims and witnesses, all focused on the understanding that safety of the public is a matter of concern with respect to repeat offenders. I would refer the member to the detailed perspective in these policies.

With respect to the particular case I spoke about earlier in question period, it makes me angry. I’m sure it makes everybody angry, the outcomes of that particular case. I think it’s right that the Solicitor General has asked for a review to understand what happened in that particular case to make sure that it never happens again.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General in the sense that there was recognition of this never to happen again.

I would encourage the Attorney General…. I know she recognizes what I’ve said here relating to this specific CHI 1 policy in the Crown Counsel Policy Manual relating to child victims and witnesses and that these particular provisions seem to be quite applicable to the very unfortunate situation that was described by my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission and what families and community members are dealing with in Kelowna.

I would hope that in the context of whatever follow-on there is with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General within the integrated justice system that we have in this province, there is a specific review of this policy and whether there was a gap in how the policy was being applied. That’s not just…. That’s within the system that I say that. Of course, clearly, the communication of risk factors is to be communicated to the court to ensure protection of the public. So somewhere along the way, there seems to have been a gap, very regrettably.

I also, with regret, need to turn to another section of my estimates process with the Attorney General in the time that I have. I appreciate the patience of the Attorney General as we get through the balance of my time here, short as it is.

I would like to now turn to an area that is of significant consideration and concern within the legal community in our province for the last two years, since the time of the release of the intentions paper by the Ministry of Attorney General in September 2022. Of course, I’m referring to the legal professions regulatory modernization.

[4:40 p.m.]

We know that there was a response to this. One of the responses was set out in the Canadian Bar Association’s B.C. branch’s paper on November 18, 2022. Of course, there’s been a process of some level of consultation, and the ministry did issue a what-we-heard report in May 2023.

Given the scale of what’s being considered here, I think it’s important that, as we have this opportunity to talk about the state of our justice system and as we’ve touched on here in a few ways, clearly we recognize the main frame­work within the legal profession, the 14,000 lawyers in this province and the notaries and the paralegals, as we talk about the importance of access to justice.

But there has been a concern expressed that I’ve heard, certainly over the last number of years, about the overreach and the intrusion by the government in a continued way into the lives of British Columbians and of the continued path, under this current government, for government control over formerly independent professions.

We saw that with the engineers. We saw that certainly under Bill 36, with the time that we had before closure was brought, on the first third of the bill when we still had two-thirds of the bill to go through, as the member for Prince George–Valemount and the members of the official opposition know very well. We didn’t even have the opportunity to review the rest of that bill.

In the context of this discussion — recognizing that the government, as far as we can determine within the official opposition, recognizing that there are many organizations under NDAs, stakeholder groups in this province — that from what we can tell, what we sense, is that the legal profession is one of the last professions in British Columbia to have independence from the provincial government.

It’s for good reason, because of course, the legal profession is that constitutional check and balance against government and arguably the only thing that protects citizens, British Columbians, from government overreach.

In the context of the modernization process that the Attorney General and her ministry is still involved with, I’m asking the Attorney General to confirm and indicate whether this government sees the danger in government interference in the legal profession as a danger to one of the central foundations of a free democracy?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m a lawyer, and I know the member opposite asking the questions is a lawyer, and one of the things we hold as lawyers is that our independence is key to our ability to operate in our profession and that the regulator is, of course, tasked to make sure that independence stands.

I can assure the member that this project is not about the attack on the independence of the legal profession. It’s about modernizing the regulator and the legal professions and increasing access to justice for the public of this province.

I am engaged with meetings with anybody who asks about this topic in order to hear their perspectives and their ideas. We are getting a lot of really interesting ideas when it comes to this. The end result will be better access to justice, a modern regulator and the independence of the legal profession.

M. Lee: I would expect the Attorney General and the Premier and members of the Legislative Assembly, including those who are members of the Law Society and have practised within the legal profession in our province, like myself…. There is great recognition of the importance of a free and independent, self-regulated legal profession.

[4:45 p.m.]

The Attorney General also indicated, in terms of the level of consultation that has occurred since September 2022 — we’re coming on now to a year and a half at least for this project — that many of the organizations that are critical to this discussion, such as the Law Society itself, the B.C. Paralegal Association and the Notaries Association in British Columbia, have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements, which effectively, as you know, silences those organizations from engaging in any public discussion about this issue.

Will the Attorney General confirm that all these organizations, including the Law Society and the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, have been asked to sign NDAs or are under NDAs? Is she not concerned that this constrains the level of public discourse, review and en­gagement on such a significant modernization, in the words that this government uses, of the legal profession?

Hon. N. Sharma: As the member knows, as somebody who has served in government, this is a regular practice not related to this bill.

I will just reiterate some things I mentioned before: that this has been a public process, in terms of an open call for the public to give their input, the release of an intentions paper and a what-we-heard document. There will be further…. Obviously, as I mentioned, I take meetings with anybody who asks that they want to meet about this.

It’s a very common practice, when we’re drafting legislation, to sign NDAs with the most knowledgable and interested parties. Actually, in my view, that helps the process, because it helps us be able to dig into the draft legislation with these parties, in a confidential way, to get their input, their feedback and their expertise, to make it a better piece of legislation.

M. Lee: I made reference earlier to the fact that we are in the third week of a ten-week, compressed legislative session. I appreciate the opportunity, at the beginning of estimates, to have this discussion with the Attorney General, recognizing as well, in terms of what she said, and also to highlight….

I know the Attorney General is aware of the letter that she would have received on January 12 of this year, 2024, addressed from Scott Morashita, the president of the Can­adian Bar Association, British Columbia branch. Mr. Morashita, on behalf of the 7,800 members of the CBA of British Columbia, expressed concern about needing the opportunity to have a proper, fulsome discussion and consultation with lawyers, in the broadest way.

There was a specific, particular urging, by the Canadian Bar Association, a request that the proposed draft legislation be shared with the entire legal profession and the public, with sufficient time for meaningful and open consultation prior to its consideration by the Legislature. Will the Attorney General agree to that request, to en­sure there’s a broader level of consultation and engagement with members of the legal profession and the broader public?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to reiterate what I said before, it’s not special about this piece of legislation that we’re working on. This is a confidential process. Parliamentary privilege is one of the fundamentals of our democracy.

We are closely engaged with the regulators, under an NDA to look at that legislation. I think it will make it better. Of course, as always, I’m committed to meeting with the CBA. I have met with them in the past to talk about this and to make sure that everybody understands what our goals are.

M. Lee: Really, I appreciate the Attorney General’s confirmation, at least, to the ongoing dialogue and the availa­bility of the Attorney General to meet with members of the CBA — Mr. Morishita, his executive members and execu­tive director as well.

The context is the actual details of the proposed legislation. What we have, as I referred to, is the government’s what-we-heard paper, released in May of 2023, which is coming on ten months ago, in the absence of further clarity, about what the government is considering or proposing coming forward — other than to that closed group of individuals, as the Attorney General described, who are under non-disclosure agreements.

This is where this government has been so much challenged by public process and consultation. When we don’t bring along members of the public, we have a lot of concerns expressed. We saw that, certainly, with the Land Act amendments — a breakdown and a failure in public process.

In this case, we don’t even have a slide deck on en­gage.gov.bc.ca that describes the framework for the legislation, which we did have in the Land Act amendments. At least this time, we have an intentions paper that was publicly announced in some way. For Land Act amendments, we didn’t even have a public announcement, but we had a government that changed the slide deck.

Here, in the absence of any details, we have this what-we-heard report, and that’s the reason why. Why would the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, representing 7,800 lawyers of the 14,000 in our province, be concerned about seeing the proposed legislation in advance of when it’s tabled in this House? It’s because there are just no details.

Let me just ask one fundamental aspect. The minister confirmed earlier, in response to my first question, that she recognizes and supports the need to maintain the independence of the legal profession in our province. Does that mean that the Attorney General will confirm that elected lawyers will form the majority on any proposed regulatory board?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I will just note that talking about the details of legislation that’s yet to be introduced in this context is, in my view, out of bounds of the conversation that we should be having.

What I can say is that very key to the discussions about maintaining the independence of the legal profession is understanding that governance has an important role in that. This is one of the factors and principles that we are taking into account when it comes to this legislation.

M. Lee: I do appreciate the context in which we’re having this discussion. I appreciate there has been some lati­tude for that. I would suggest that reasons for that are the compressed nature of our legislative session and the lack of understanding and transparency from this government as to where it’s at with the modernization of the legal profession, other than in the what-we-heard report.

Even with respect to the Attorney General’s last re­sponse…. I appreciate that the Attorney General has indicated that independence is a factor for consideration, but that’s not a clear answer to the membership that the composition of the regulatory board is going to have a majority of elected lawyers.

I know this remains of grave concern. I can only hope that the Attorney General will stay clear in her perspective to recognize the independence of the legal profession and the reason for that, both as recognized under our constitution and in case law. It’s recognition that she, herself, in her roles as a member of this government and as Attorney General of this province, is tasked with ensuring that the public administration of justice is conducted according to the law.

It is something I’ve talked about at length — when the Premier, the former Attorney General of our province, had the role to be the chief legal officer of our province, and what it meant in the context of the significant reform to ICBC legislation he’d brought forward while being the minister responsible for ICBC. I have argued at length about that with this government: that, in my view, and the view of some others in the legal profession, the Premier was in clear conflict with his duties.

Interjection.

M. Lee: I’ve said it in this House. It’s on the record. You can go check Hansard. It’s there in length.

Interjection.

The Chair: I would remind members of who has the floor.

M. Lee: It’s on the Hansard record, and that’s something that everyone, all British Columbians, can read.

I will repeat it again. The minister, the Premier, was under conflict. I’ve said it repeatedly in this House.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, I’m happy to say it here. I’ve said it as a member of this Legislative Assembly, in the role that I play.

I say that to understand the current Attorney General and the role she has, at the pleasure of the Premier. Recognizing that and recognizing the example the Premier set as the Attorney General of our province, the challenges that he had in his own role, as I’ve questioned in this House repeatedly, as members on the opposite side have raised….

[5:00 p.m.]

With that in mind, I would ask this Attorney General to confirm and to consider, as she introduces legislation in this legislative session: does she not see any concern relating to the conflict in her duties as Attorney General of our province, the chief legal officer of our province, when we’re talking about potentially threatening the legal independence of the legal profession in our province?

Hon. N. Sharma: The member has said many things that I would question the accuracy of.

Simply to the question of whether or not I see a conflict, the answer is no. I’m working to make the justice system better in this province, to increase access to justice in this province, to make it so we have a functioning justice system that responds to people’s needs, and I’ll keep doing that work.

I know my predecessor, who is now Premier…. I’m very proud of the work he did when he was Attorney General.

M. Lee: I would remind the Attorney General that the track record of the Premier is spotty at best, with the amount of reform the Premier led as the Attorney General of this province, the level of challenge to the rule of law, the rules of court. Many pieces of legislation that the Premier had brought forward as the Attorney General were ruled unconstitutional.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Is the Attorney General concerned in any way that the potential reform of the legal profession, the modernization in terms of what she has been reviewing with her ministry, would be ruled unconstitutional?

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, obviously, we will see, as the details are shared with this House in the weeks to come, if not sooner.

I will just turn back to the topic that the Attorney General reiterated in terms of the purpose of the legal profession’s modernization. It’s been said, and certainly I share the recognition — as, I would think, all members of the legal profession in the work with notaries and paralegals and those who work in family law and the like, legal aid — that we need to continue to support greater access to justice for our province and British Columbians.

We know, of course, that work has been ongoing for many years. We see that with many of the services that have been created, including legal services, which is now Legal Aid; the creation of Pro Bono Law of B.C., which is now Access Pro Bono; discussions to amendments to the Legal Profession Act back in 2018, which I certainly reviewed with the Premier when he was Attorney General, to permit licensed paralegals; and obviously the work that’s been done in family law and First Nation justice strategy. There are many examples of how we can continue to improve and support access to justice in our province.

Of course, it is not necessary to undermine or interfere with the lawyers’ rights to self-regulate and be independent. I will ask for the last time, before I move on: is there any specific item here that’s being considered in terms of access to justice that necessitates interfering with the lawyers’ right to self-regulate?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The premise of the question is that I have some intention to undermine the independence of the legal profession, and the answer to that is no. But the member raises, I think, some really important work that we’ve done on access to justice, whether it’s standing up Indigenous justice centres across this province — there will be 15 in a year, really improving access to justice in this province; or whether it’s an infusion of money to family law legal aid to help up to 4,500 more people access family law legal aid in this province.

I could list all of the interventions, whether it’s the early resolution process, virtual bail, all the interventions that we’ve had to make our justice system work better in this province. We’re doing that in partnership with lawyers across this province to do the work, who are really committed to the same goals that we have, which is serving the public and helping people resolve their legal disputes.

M. Lee: Turning to some of the points we just touched on in respect to legal aid and family law, British Columbia is the only province in Canada without legal aid for routine family law matters like spousal and child support, parenting arrangements or dividing debts and property fairly. This budget has offered no new funding or expansion for family law legal aid for these types of situations.

Why has there been no additional support provided, especially in the face of the submissions that have been provided to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in this area over the last seven years?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: As a government, we’ve been trying to dig Legal Aid out of the massive hole that they were in when we formed government.

In 2002, there was a 40 percent cut across the board, a 60 percent cut to family law and the complete elimination of poverty law services in this province. To think about the number of people that went without legal services at that time that were in desperate need of help, it’s just astounding to me.

We have put a record amount of money back into legal aid services in this province: $8 million to expand family legal aid, including the creation of a multidisciplinary family legal clinic; expanding eligibility for family law legal aid services, increasing intake capacity; $1.13 million to provide legal aid service for the incremental expansion of the early resolution process, which goes beyond legal aid in terms of services. It’s not just legal services that are provided in that.

We have put in so many resources, particularly when there’s family violence, to dig our province out of the hole created by the other government when it came to access to justice in this province. We’ll continue to do that work.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. As I said at the outset, British Columbia remains the only province in Canada that doesn’t provide legal aid for these types of family law challenges. As much as the Attorney General refers to the Provincial Court’s early resolution system, that doesn’t help those who need a lawyer to assist them.

As a result, parents who are in these situations, when we’re dealing with child support and parenting time, division of assets, are left to navigate the system on their own or give up their children, leaving their children in continual conflict.

I will go on, just given the time we have here, to raise another area with the Attorney General, and that is that we know, despite the changing nature of the government’s recognition of Métis Nation B.C., that there is some level of ongoing work that’s being done. The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation — his two letters in May were…. In one case, he recognized Métis Nation B.C., and in the second case two weeks later, he reversed his position.

I will pursue that more in the estimates process for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. But in the context of the work that’s been done, I understand from the leadership of Métis Nation B.C. that they’ve had some discussion with the Premier about this as well.

The ongoing work in terms of the justice strategy that is moving forward, I understand, is near completion. I would just ask the Attorney General to share where the work is being done with Métis Nation B.C. on that justice strategy and the services that would be made available with the Métis Nation B.C. Justice Council involvement, if the Minister can confirm where that Métis justice strategy is at, at this current time, in terms of approving, first, and then implementing with this current government.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to start by correcting something the member said previously, to make sure it’s clear, if people are listening, that they can get legal aid services.

The suggestion that some family law services are not available for legal aid is just not true. We have contracts that can provide services for all family law issues in this province. And you don’t have to show that there’s family violence implicated, but there are special services for that. I want to put that clearly on the record.

The infusion of $29 million into that program will mean that 4,500 more people get access to legal aid for family law in this province.

With respect to the member’s question about the Métis justice strategy, we are working towards endorsement of that strategy in the next coming months, this spring.

M. Lee: In the context of sticking with the Métis justice strategy here, has there been, with the work that is going on with the Indigenous justice centres, inclusion or consultation with Métis Nation B.C. about creating and ensuring that those centres are safe spaces for Métis peoples as well?

Hon. N. Sharma: Our expectation and what’s in the strategy is those Indigenous justice centres would be culturally respectful and open and inclusive to all Indigenous people in this province. It’s my understanding that those conversations between the nations are happening right now to make sure that the centres do that.

M. Lee: In terms of the consultations with nations, just to be specific, is there ongoing, or any, discussion with Métis Nation B.C. that’s actually budgeted for in respect of consultation for Indigenous justice centres?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We have provided funding in the past to support the development of this strategy. Once the strategy is endorsed, which we look forward to happening in the next few months, then we can have a conversation on the supports needed and the funding needed to support this strategy.

M. Lee: Just to clarify, once the strategy is approved by government, the next step is to identify the resources necessary to implement the strategy, meaning the financial resources. Is that the case?

Secondly, if that is the case, how long a period of time will that be in terms of providing capacity funding to implement the strategy?

Hon. N. Sharma: We don’t have a specific timing on that next stage, just that we would sit down with our partners to figure that out with them.

M. Lee: We recognize, of course, that…. I want to make this point to the Attorney General, just to have her provide a further comment, really recognizing the challenge here. We obviously recognize the overrepresentation challenge that we have as a province with the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in our justice system. I know that that has been part of the mandate letters, even for our current Premier when he was Attorney General.

But Métis peoples are also a part of that overrepresented Indigenous population in our judicial system. I know that there continue to be concerns by Métis peoples about the discrimination they face within our justice system due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of Métis people in B.C. and Métis culture.

With that in mind, as I understand it, this Métis justice strategy has been work that’s been going on for some years. As we just talked about in our discussion about funding, that funding….

[5:25 p.m.]

I would say that based on the Attorney General’s response, there is no funding. There is no funding in this budget. There’s nothing allocated. That funding determination will occur after the strategy is ultimately finalized and approved by this government with Métis Nation B.C.

Is the Attorney General not concerned, with the challenge that Métis peoples face here in our province, that this continued delay is leading to a real challenge to put the lives of Métis peoples literally at risk in our province?

Hon. N. Sharma: One of the things we’re very committed to, as a government, is our work, not only in UNDRIP, but for my part, the Indigenous justice strategy, and that has two tracks to it.

The first track is to make sure that the negative impacts of the current justice system that are felt by Indigenous people across this province, including Métis, are lessened. We have been putting substantial resources towards that. Those are through the Indigenous justice centres — there are close to ten now, and there will be 15 in a year from now across this province — where there is a team of legal professionals and supports that are set up there to provide legal services.

It is also why we acknowledge the need for a Métis Nation justice strategy, and that’s why we funded them to get to the stage of where we are today with that. We are not only seized with this issue; I care about it deeply as Attorney General. We are also putting resources towards this to make it better.

M. Lee: I do appreciate that response from the Attorney General. I would just like to turn back to the point of clarification that the Attorney General provided relating to our discussion relating to legal aid for family law challenges or problems.

I just want to clarify. When I asked the original question, I was referring to legal aid supports to fund and support families who are experiencing challenges in the family law area relating to child support, parenting time, division of assets and debts.

I made the statement that B.C. is the only province that doesn’t provide legal aid for those services. Just to clarify, I heard the Attorney General’s clarification subsequent to that. But to reclarify my question, I’d just like to ask the Attorney General to clarify her response so that we’re clear that we’re talking apples to apples as the expression goes.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the opportunity to provide further clarity on this one. Yes, we do provide legal services for family law, legal aid, legal services for all family law issues in this province through things like family limited rep contracts. As I mentioned before, the money that was recently announced will go to an expansion of services for people in this province.

M. Lee: I want to come back to a question that I actually realized that I had moved over.

When we were talking about the basic theme I’ve been addressing here with the Attorney General throughout the life of this estimates process, it has been about confidence, the public’s confidence in administration of justice.

[5:30 p.m.]

When we look at page 13, for example, of the 2023-2024 Attorney General service plan, there is an objective, 2.1, which is: “Improved community and public safety for all British Columbians.” I would ask the Attorney General…. I don’t see any performance measure in the Attorney General’s service plan related to that.

First of all, why is that, and if that is the case, how does the Attorney General measure the performance of the Ministry of Attorney General relating to maintaining confidence in the administration of justice?

Hon. N. Sharma: With respect to that question, we have taken a whole-of-government approach when it comes to our community safety plan, through the safer communities action plan. That is a collaboration of multiple ministries with respect to the work that we’re doing on public safety. Because of that, performance measures are held by different ministries.

For example, I talked at length today about the ReVOII program and the investments that we are making in that. Of course, we are the Crown counsel part of that, but the overall oversight of that, in terms of measures, is held by the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Public Safety.

As it’s a whole government approach, we feed into other performance measures, as the member asked.

M. Lee: Is there a specific measure, a performance mea­sure, that measures the impact of the repeat violent offending intervention initiative, ReVOII?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m really proud of the work of the ReVOII program. I think the member has heard me mention it many times. One of the key things that we’re doing very differently in this province, and I know that compared to other provinces, is understanding data that we have on people as they are going through the justice system, so we can make better decisions.

That program has, I think, a terms of reference on what the performance measures are. It’s too early to release that, but at some point, we will be able to tell the public what we’re finding in the few months that it has been running.

[5:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just related to all of this is, in recognizing the Attorney General’s previous response…. We’ll likely, hopefully, have the opportunity to talk directly with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. There is a specific objective in that minister’s service plan, 4.1, which is equivalent to increased public confidence in the justice and public safety sector. This is in respect of measuring performance relating to public confidence in police services.

Recognizing the fact we’re talking about an integrated plan, I would have expected, though, that there would be a separate performance measure in terms of what effectively would be the mirror image of that, the confidence of the public in the court and Prosecution Service of B.C. to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Why is there no separate performance measure here for the Attorney General and her ministry?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: This is a very complicated answer, and I’ll try to clarify this in the context of the justice system.

We have an independent judiciary, rightfully so, in a democracy. We have an independent B.C. Prosecution Service, we have a multiministry approach when it comes to community safety, and we have the legal framework. We talked at length today about Jordan stays and the timelines the judiciary puts on us, which is a performance measure in itself, but it’s a judicially determined one. As a justice system, we operate, actually, with many measurements that are on us all the time, and we don’t hold the data.

The judiciary has their work plan and their KPIs. The B.C. Prosecution Service does. We have specific ones, like I talked about with ReVOII — that’s held by the PSSG, which is monitoring that — that we’re measuring.

We also are taking data in new ways, and I think the member had some of that in his hand when he was asking me questions.

It is a very interesting topic. I just want to say what COVID taught us about this.

In the independence, and rightfully so, all the indepen­dent actors in the justice system…. During COVID, there was a need to work together to keep the justice system working. Through that, there is a national action committee, which B.C. sits on because of leadership, that role. I sit on this. It contains the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal minister, different reps of the judiciary and Attorneys General and ministry reps. We talk about data.

I think the member is asking this question, which is a really important one: how does a justice system measure outcomes? It’s a hard question in itself. What is an outcome, right? I just think that, through the data we’re collecting in B.C. in new ways but also through the conversation that we’re at the table at nationally, to understand that is going to make us help to move in a direction where we understand that. Just to say that all the independent actors are important, and their own measurements.

Then there are the courts, like I mentioned, that set certain limits on us. We’ve talked about the 18 months and 30 months with Jordan stays. That’s a measurement we have to work towards.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. I would, at this point, like to recap, so I can have the Attorney General confirm the level of follow-on that I, myself, can be doing, as organized through her office, with her ministry.

We talked earlier about hate crimes and antisemitism and the additional measures and data that is being collected post–February 16, with the new HAT 1 policy. We’ve talked about some of the measures here, and the Attorney General just summarized the overall framework.

I do recall, certainly, and I appreciated, as I mentioned earlier, the degree of access I was receiving. Not that I’m suggesting this at this juncture, but through the pandemic, the Premier, as a former Attorney General, had arranged for myself to have weekly briefings with the Deputy Attorney General Richard Fyfe in that context. I certainly appreciate the level of collaboration and work that was going on both provincially and nationally, as the Attorney General said.

We’ve talked about the statistics and the challenges. I may still talk about them tomorrow, in the small time I have left, but I think it just demonstrates the importance of continued improvement to our judicial system.

Let me just ask the Attorney General to confirm that level of follow-on that I could have. I’ll just pause here to have that on the record, and then I can follow on between our staffs in the future.

Hon. N. Sharma: To the member opposite, of course, if there is a briefing that he would like on a specific topic or regular briefings, we are open and happy to do that.

[5:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: I just now turn to an area which is a bit sensitive. So keep that in mind. But it is related to confidence in the justice system.

I would say I’m certainly mindful, in my role in opposition and what is said. I hope members of the public and members of the bar would consider the comments that we make are really — obviously, we are here to hold the government to account — political in nature, but when we’re talking about people’s safety and confidence in our justice system, there is a balance that we all need to maintain.

I think it’s instructive for all members of this House to have the discussion I’m about to have with the Attorney General, but I also recognize that the Attorney General and the Premier of our province have specific roles. That’s something I questioned earlier and raised earlier, and we don’t need to retread that ground right now, but it is in the context of comments made. Recently there was, from the Attorney General….

I wanted to give her the opportunity, in the context of the discussion we’re having about the importance of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice in our province…. The Attorney General made some public comment around, I guess, October or November of 2023 relating to a convicted voyeur using what was a hidden camera in an electric toothbrush charger to film video of an international student — obviously, lots of concerns around that. We talk about here that this individual had a conditional discharge after pleading guilty to one count of voyeurism and avoided a criminal record if he completed 30 months of probation.

There were certain comments that were made by the Attorney General related to that. It went along the lines of the importance of trauma-informed practice for all members of the justice system. Arguably, it could be viewed to be directed to the judge involved in this.

Obviously, we recognize the role the Attorney General plays is an important one, with responsibility for B.C. Prosecution Service, as we’ve been discussing through the length of this estimates process, and the roles of Crown and defence counsel in presenting information and the role of the judge in balancing the sentencing factors are important.

I only say this because I know that there was some concern expressed by members of the legal community about the comments the Attorney General had made. I know we need to continue to maintain that level of balance and the crucial role that the Attorney General plays in maintaining confidence in our justice system.

With that in mind, I know the Attorney General knows about the instance that I’m referring to, but I’d like to give her the opportunity to perhaps comment on her learnings from that situation.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I would like to say on the record that I understand my role pretty clearly as an elected representative of a riding in this province with particular political views but also as the Attorney General and the chief law officer of this province. They’re something that I weigh and think about every day in this job and I take very seriously in everything that I do when it comes to my role.

I will say the Leader of the Official Opposition said, with respect to the comments I made, that he would side with the AG on this one, that it’s an outrageous situation, and we don’t want young women to be victimized like that with people hiding cameras and having very little consequences.

I’ll leave it at that.

M. Lee: The way I framed the question was the recognition of the roles that we each play. I think we all have a lot to learn from each other. That’s the reason why I raised the question. But I appreciate the response and the way that the Attorney General provided it. I would just suggest that the reason why I raise it is for the learning in this. I would suggest that there are still considerations around this. I heard the Attorney General speak to her role and the recognition of her role.

With that in mind, I would just ask her then, in terms of the Premier himself…. The Premier has also made similar comments that might be seen to be questioning decisions made by the judiciary in ways that might undermine concerns and confidence in the justice system.

Does the Attorney General have the same level of conversation with the Premier to ensure that…? Of course, he would say himself that he understands his role. But just to remind the Premier of his responsibilities as well, vis-à-vis ensuring that we continue to have and support the public’s confidence in the administration of justice in our province.

Hon. N. Sharma: I can assure the member that as a previous Attorney General, the Premier understands the role very much. Any conversation that I have with him, obviously, is completely confidential.

M. Lee: I’d just like to turn, in the time that we have left today, to a recent statement by the Premier, which I would just pass to the Attorney General if I can, just for reference.

Maybe I could just comment first before I do that, just because I’m not sure I have more than one copy here with this. This is in respect of the Gitxaała First Nation’s Court of Appeal application.

[5:55 p.m.]

As we know, in terms of Mineral Tenure Act review, there was a Supreme Court of Justice decision in respect of that case that was brought forward both by the Gitxaała First Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation.

Back in November, at the end of November, at the First Nations leadership gathering in Vancouver, there was a report as to what the Premier had said about the notice or information that the Gitxaała, at least, had filed a notice of appeal indicating that they would apply to appeal the decision.

The Premier had said that the province is currently working on a new mineral tenure act that makes sense for 2023 and that…. The direct quote is: “It’s not as simple to say that DRIPA, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, is unenforceable. In fact, the rights documents that inform this incredibly important law are entirely enforceable.”

I’m raising this with the Attorney General, recognizing that there are…. In my other role as Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation shadow minister, I have the opportunity to join many of my colleagues, schedule permitting, on many bill review debates. Over the last four and a half years, since this Legislative Assembly has adopted UNDRIP through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, there’s been a common consideration about what it means.

Of course, my colleague the member for Abbotsford West and myself spent five days in committee session with the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about what the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act means. We know that this government, pursuant to its DRIPA action plan, 89 action items, is continuing to do the work to implement, in their view, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

In the meantime, there have been points of consideration. In my view, it’s important to ensure that this government and this Attorney General have a good understanding, remind government about the nature of UNDRIP and DRIPA itself and what was said as this government brought forward that act to this House and the number of confirmations that the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation provided to this House in committee debate on bills that we commonly do.

The reason why that’s important is because the judiciary have reviewed that Hansard transcript, even in this Gitxaała decision on the Mineral Tenure Act by Supreme Court Justice Alan Ross. It was in that context that Mr. Justice Ross indicated and described DRIPA as more of an “interpreted aid than a legal statute.”

It was in response to that statement that the Premier made his statement that I read out. I will share this now with the Attorney General and just ask her to comment on what the Premier means when he says that it is not as simple to say that this “is unenforceable. In fact, the rights documents that inform this incredibly important law are entirely enforceable.”

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: DRIPA is a very important piece of legislation in this province. I think every day, every minister and ministry team show their commitment to the work that we are going to do and are doing under DRIPA. That’s an everyday commitment, an every-piece-of-legislation commitment. I can’t comment on a case that is under appeal and before the courts.

M. Lee: I appreciate that a notice of appeal has been filed by the First Nations involved. But let me ask, to confirm, why it is that this government chose not to appeal that decision.

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, as the matter is before the court, I can’t comment.

M. Lee: I recognize that in the actual submissions to the court…. There are different ways to come at this discussion.

The reason why it’s important to have it here is because, as the Attorney General just indicated, we continue to see, including in Bill 5 — and Bill 7, as I understand it, that was introduced today — recognition of the work that’s needed to align the laws of British Columbia with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. That alignment is work that is forward-looking.

Perhaps I could just ask the Attorney General to confirm that that is the government’s view: that the work that is necessary to align the laws of British Columbia, to use all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under section 3 of DRIPA, is forward-looking in terms of the work that legislation has brought to this House.

Hon. N. Sharma: There’s an interim document that shows our commitment and the process we are undertaking to implement in UNDRIP.

I, again, can’t comment on the case or the specifics or details of the case. But I would encourage the member…. I’m sure he will, given his deep interest in this topic, canvass these questions with MIRR once he gets a chance to.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General’s response in the sense that there is a need to canvass this with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I certainly will have, actually, even more time to do that than I have here. I welcome that opportunity.

I do think, though, given the degree of lack of clarity, I would say, with British Columbians as to how the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is being implemented….

[6:05 p.m.]

It’s important that the Attorney General, in her role, can share with members of the opposition, but also members of this Legislative Assembly, as to how that fundamental piece of legislation, which is overarching and guiding so much of the work of government…. What are the obligations and rights and responsibilities?

I would like to, in that context, just relate back to the overarching considerations of government. When there is a need to ensure that there is appropriate consultation and accommodation, it’s done in the context of where there might be an apparent infringement by the Crown on Ab­original rights and title.

We know that Aboriginal rights and title are protected under Section 35 of the constitution. We know that there’s an obligation on the Crown to take reasonable steps to consult and accommodate First Nations and Indigenous communities. Then, in that work, that work also includes balancing and reconciliation of non-Indigenous people. Those interests need to be taken into account as well.

As we look at how DRIPA is being implemented by this government, to the Attorney General, what role has she played in reminding government of its obligations under the Haida decision, as brought forward on Mikisew as well, of those consultation and accommodation responsibilities, which include balancing the interests of all British Columbians?

Hon. N. Sharma: The role of the Attorney General is to provide legal advice. The team here does, in accordance with what our constitutional obligations are and what our commitments are under UNDRIP, within ministries across this government every day.

I will say that I mentioned…. It’s the interim approach that’s a public document that really shows the public what our commitment is in terms of DRIPA and working with First Nations in this province.

M. Lee: I would address the Attorney General that I am aware of petitions that have been filed by the Doig River First Nation and the Halfway River First Nation. I have met with chief and council for both nations with my colleague the member for Peace River North.

I know that in considerations relating to these petitions, there are ongoing discussions with this government. But I do think the petitions themselves speak to a breakdown in understanding the obligations and responsibilities of this government to ensure that there is full consultation.

That consultation doesn’t just include non-Indigenous peoples, as I mentioned. It also includes other nations. In this case, in the Treaty 8 area, we have very challenging situations where this government came forward to make an announcement over a year ago, in Prince George, about its agreement with Blueberry River First Nation, on the basis of a very rushed process. There have been concerns raised by both the Doig and Halfway River First Nations about the breakdown in communication.

[6:10 p.m.]

This goes back to the concerns that we have been having around the way this government proceeds, even with First Nations — even with First Nations that have had their rights compromised.

I mean, we have economic rights. We have economic considerations where, with the nature of the agreement that has been entered into between the government and Blueberry River First Nation, that they impede and undermine the economic rights and environmental protection rights of the neighbouring nations: Halfway and Doig.

In the context of how a government goes forward to address considerations of the First Nations, it does raise the question as to, again, the role of the Attorney General to ensure that her colleagues, including the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the Premier, as they announced in Prince George this arrangement with Blueberry….

There were announcements at the same time, in about a week or so, various letter agreements-of-principle with Doig and Halfway. But as it turns out, a year later, none of those commitments were met. The understandings under which these two nations signed their letter agreements…. In their words, they were misled. In their view, there was a deliberate withholding of critical information to each of these nations. There was misrepresentation.

I know the Attorney General recognizes the importance of honour of the Crown. It is, quite frankly, a very serious concern that has been expressed by these two First Nations about how this government has dealt with them.

This I would hope the Attorney General is considering in the context, in the first instance, of the kind of advice and guidance she provides as the Attorney General of our province, the chief legal officer, of the obligations of the province under Haida, the duty to consult and accommodate — that that obligation doesn’t just relate to the government-to-government discussion, but it relates to the other interests of society, which include the neighbouring First Nations, and in this case, that coupled with the fundamental obligation of the fiduciary role of the Crown, it has an obligation to act in good faith.

With the amount of concerns I’ve seen spelled out in these petitions, it is very concerning that this government did not do so.

As we look at how this government is addressing this situation, I would ask the Attorney General: does this government understand its obligations in respect of consultation and accommodation, including in respect of the Treaty 8 Nations, Doig and Halfway River, in the context of what has been signed in a rushed manner a year ago?

Hon. N. Sharma: As I mentioned before, I can’t talk about an active legal case, but what I wanted to spend some time on right now is how fortunate I am to have an exceptional team of lawyers in the Attorney General that are working every day, oftentimes at the forefront of the law, when it comes to, particularly, our DRIPA goals or the constitutional law that’s developing in our country.

[6:15 p.m.]

We have lawyers on our team, and I hope they’re listening now, that are at the forefront of changing the laws, oftentimes of the whole country, right here in this prov­ince, and also negotiating agreements that are often first of their kinds, sitting at the forefront of developing law, building partnerships and relationships and advising ministries in many different ways, given the ambitious agenda of this government.

I am super proud of that team. I’m proud of the work they do every day in providing exceptional advice to all of us in the work we want to do as a government.

M. Lee: Obviously, I, as a member of the opposition, wouldn’t be able to get into the kind of advice the Attorney General is receiving in respect of the significant changes that are occurring, at least with legislation and agreements.

But I’m very concerned about the government’s agenda, as the Attorney General referred to it. She did say it’s an ambitious agenda, but it’s still, nonetheless, an agenda. All I’m reminding the Attorney General of, in her role as a chief legal officer, is she has the responsibility to remind the Premier and the entire executive council about the arrangements that come forward.

The Blueberry agreement was a very significant agreement. It dealt with…. As the Attorney General well knows, it was in response to the courts. It’s in response to the obligations of the Crown under Treaty 8. It’s in response to the cumulative impacts of resource development in the North.

That is all recognized. But in the context of the agenda of this government, we need to ensure that First Nations and British Columbians are brought along — that there’s proper consultation, that there’s information and understanding there, just as UNDRIP requires free, prior and informed consent.

Now, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Recon­ciliation, both the former one and the current one, has referred repeatedly that UNDRIP is an interpretive aid. That’s the reason why the government, even in its own filings, has confirmed that. That’s the government’s position, and it’s clear.

It’s clear that even in response to my question in the House about the economic livelihood rights under the articles of UNDRIP, community benefit agreements violate the unfair labour conditions article in UNDRIP that the current Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation said: “Well, UNDRIP was not meant to be parsed through. There are no separate legal rights under UNDRIP. It’s illustrative.”

Government’s own position in the courts that the De­claration Act does not give independent legal force to the articles of UNDRIP. This is very important because this is the government’s position, even in the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht case. So as we proceed and go forward, we need to have a very clear understanding of the purpose and use of the DRIPA act.

We recognize that in terms of the work of the govern­ment lawyers as they work on significant agreements, like we’ve seen under section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, we’ve seen two agreements in 4½ years with one nation, the Tāłtān. That’s the pace of this ambitious agenda of this government: two agreements, one nation out of 204 nations, in 4½ years.

I recognize the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation will talk about the nature and the pipeline of other agreements that are in the works. I will have the opportunity to discuss that with the minister. But in the context of the work that’s being done by government lawyers, I do recognize and appreciate the significance of what we’re addressing.

[6:20 p.m.]

That’s all the more reason that we have clarity beyond the interim approach to the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. This is the document that the Attorney General has referred to on more than one occasion here.

I appreciate that document. I recognize that document has been provided as a framework to indicate, to British Columbians, what approach this government is taking to implementing the DRIPA act. In terms of the pace of change, it’s important that we have an Attorney General that provides the necessary legal framework of understanding, as the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation said repeatedly, that UNDRIP is to be read through the lens of Section 35 jurisprudence.

It’s the reason why, as we look at the Haida court decision in particular and the decisions that have followed, there is an obligation on this government to ensure that there’s due and proper consultation and accommodation. Again, I’m very concerned that we are not seeing that level of responsibility being utilized, which is creating challenges in the way that legislation is brought forward to this House, in respect of the Land Act amendments. It’s creating challenges with British Columbians to have that lack of understanding around what the government’s intention truly is.

I know that when I raised the example of Doig River and Halfway River, it’s there to indicate to the government that somewhere along the way, in the rush to push out the government’s ambitious agenda in Prince George a year and two months ago, the Premier, the Attorney General, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and this entire government failed to properly consult with the other Treaty 8 Nations. Clearly, they did not do so.

As we speak here, I’m asking the Attorney General to at least acknowledge and recognize the importance of the duty to consult with and accommodate all British Colum­bians and First Nations, to the extent that they are im­pacted by a decision of government, like the decision that the government took when they went forward with the Blueberry agreement in a very rushed fashion.

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I can assure the member that not only do we take our commitments under the consti­tution very seriously; we have a great team of lawyers that advise people every day on those obligations. We also understand our commitment under DRIPA, and the interim approach we’ve committed to taking, when it comes to the development of our legislation.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.