Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 419
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
Orders of the Day | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2024
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: Hon. D. Coulter.
Introductions by Members
R. Merrifield: It’s my distinct honour today to welcome representatives from the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of British Columbia to our House.
As the voice for consulting engineering firms across our province, the ACEC-BC plays a critical role in advancing the business interests of its members and fostering meaningful collaboration within the industry. Their advocacy for fair business practices and their efforts to elevate awareness of their industry’s significant contributions through innovative technical expertise are commendable.
It was a pleasure to have them host us for breakfast this morning, the B.C. United caucus, and join us in collaborative conversation and Q and A.
Would the House please join me in welcoming them here today.
Hon. D. Coulter: I’d like to join with the member for Kelowna-Mission in welcoming the ACEC of B.C. today to the Legislature. They are critical partners in moving forward our infrastructure projects across the province.
The executives from ACEC joining us today are Suzanne Powell — she’s from Thurber Engineering, and she’s the chair of ACEC-B.C.
Richard Bush — he’s the immediate past chair, ACEC-B.C.
Tim Stanley — he’s an immediate past chair with ACEC Canada, and he’s also a director with the ACEC-BC board.
Caroline Andrews, who is the president and CEO of ACEC-BC.
S. Bond: I’m really delighted today to welcome a number of members of the Medicines Access Coalition here to Victoria. A significant organization, 35 patient organizations in all, working to ensure that British Columbians have equitable access to medications here in the province.
I would like to welcome today Charles Aruliah from the Canadian Cancer Society.
Gail Attara from the Gastrointestinal Society.
Don Bindon from the Canadian Spondyloarthritis Association.
Melanie Colter with the Canadian PKU and Allied Disorders.
Alanah Duffy from MS Canada.
Meghan Dunn, Larry Funnel and Alice Chandler from Osteoporosis Canada.
Joan King and Nafisa Merali from Diabetes Canada.
Alan Low, who is with MedAccess BC.
Jaymee Maaghop from the Canadian Society of Intestinal Research.
Wendy Gerhart from Migraine Canada.
Antonella Scali from the Canadian Psoriasis Network.
I look forward to discussions with all of these incredible individuals and organizations later today.
I ask the House to make them most welcome.
Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, Trish Mandewo, president of the UBCM. She is here at the B.C. Legislature with her full team, UBCM executive team, as part of UBCM Advocacy Days, which take place from April 24 to 26.
During this time, the UBCM executive team will be meeting with ministers, parliamentary secretaries, caucus chairs and MLAs from all parties to raise awareness and to continue dialogue on the current key priorities identified by the whole UBCM membership. I look forward to having these discussions with the president.
Will the House please make her feel very welcome.
T. Halford: This week, I missed two important events back home. I want to congratulate the White Rock Ignite Dance team on their two gold medals yesterday at the Shine Mission Dance competition.
One of those dancers has a special place in my heart. That’s Alexandra Halford, who celebrated her tenth birthday.
I want to wish her a happy birthday and say I’m not coming home with Taylor Swift tickets, but I am coming home today. I look forward to having a piece of cake with her at home.
Hon. R. Fleming: It’s my great pleasure to welcome back to this chamber the consul general of the Republic of Portugal, Mr. João Paulo Costa.
He’s no stranger to this place, but it’s certainly no accident that His Excellency is here today visiting us in this place, a democratic chamber, on April 25. We’re honoured to have his presence here today because, for Portuguese people in Canada and around the world, this is known as Freedom Day.
Today is a very special anniversary, and the celebrations will be loud and long on the streets of Portugal, because it is the 50th anniversary of what is known as the Carnation Revolution, which is a remarkable, if not well-understood in this part of the world, occurrence in history: a peaceful, popular uprising that took place on April 25, 1974, and toppled one of Europe’s last surviving World War II–era fascist dictatorships.
The carnation refers to the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Portuguese citizens who took to the streets that day in towns and cities across the country in support of the young officers’ rebellion. In Lisbon, a mass gathering near the flower market led to the spontaneous placement of flowers by citizens in the rifle barrels of troops and led them to withdraw their weapons, almost without a shot fired. This marked and secured the Salazar regime’s downfall.
Freedom Day celebrates the open, democratic, pluralist society that is essential for Portuguese identity today.
It celebrates things that we cherish here as Canadians, with other democratic countries — things like freedom of speech, freedom of association, the end of arbitrary detention, as well as Portugal’s success and prosperity from trade relations with the European Union and other countries.
Victoria has always been blessed with a large and vibrant Portuguese community. Obviously, the singer-songwriter Nelly Furtado, who is a global superstar, is best known from this community, but generations of Portuguese have contributed to building a better capital region.
I’d like to introduce not only His Excellency but a number of Portuguese-affiliated citizens here with us today — mechanical engineering professor Afzal Suleman, graduate student Shohreh Suleman, Ricardo Marques, Diogo Bravo, João Figueiras and Sarah Suleman.
I think in celebrating Portugal’s strong affinity to democracy, as Canadians, we can celebrate right alongside them at this particularly important time in history.
I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for participating in these celebrations in Burnaby. I know you were there with the Portuguese community last weekend.
Would the House please make His Excellency and our guests most welcome here today.
B. D’Eith: As Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film and on behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, I wanted to welcome today members from the Union of B.C. Performers-ACTRA, who represent 8,600 British Columbians who work in the motion picture industry and are really the heart of the industry. During Creative Industries Week they’re here to meet with ministers, MLAs and Premiers.
In particular, we have Keith Martin Gordey, who’s the president; and then executive board member Shawn Macdonald; Aliza Vellani; Anisha Cheema; Fred Ewanuick; Lexa Doig; and then the executive administrative director, Karla Laird; the director of contracts, Lesley Brady; Angela Niu, who’s the manager of engagement; Tracy Ho and Michael Cheevers, who are industry relations officers.
Would the House please make them all very welcome.
Hon. M. Rankin: In the gallery today, joining us are Roz Seyednejad and Hamed Noori of an organization called SenseNet. They are joining us from North Vancouver and West Vancouver, respectively, to discuss intriguing fire suppression technology that they have developed. It was great to learn more about the future of fire-sensing technology from them and about the community partnerships that they are developing.
I’d kindly like all members to please make them feel welcome.
Tributes
SUSAN MAILE
C. Oakes: Our community has lost a very strong health advocate in our community. I’ve lost a dear friend and a mentor.
Susan Maile was an active volunteer for many organizations, including being a member of the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital Auxiliary for over 50 years. She was a key member in our community, starting local Meals on Wheels. She was recognized as Citizen of the Year in 1991 and received a B.C. Achievement Community Award in 2009.
Would the House kindly send their condolences to Dr. John Maile, Sue’s husband of 60 years, to their children Andrew, Nicholas and Stephen, and to their families.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ma: I have the honour of making two introductions today.
The first is Ms. Veronica Knott, who is a graduate from my alma mater, the faculty of applied sciences at UBC. She is currently working as a mining engineer with Newmont Corp., providing technical expertise and program oversight of global mining technology solutions. She also serves as a member of the board for Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C.
My second introduction today is Darryl Krakowka, mayor of the district of Tumbler Ridge, joining us here in the gallery today. Like many mayors last year, in 2023 — and, unfortunately, like many mayors will find themselves in 2024 — Mayor Krakowka found himself on the front lines of emergency response in his communities, managing evacuations and supporting community members from other parts, not just of our province but of other provinces as well.
It’s an incredibly challenging time for mayors and chairs in our rural and remote areas during the summer, especially with wildfire season starting up so early this year.
Would the House please join me in making both Veronica Knott and Darryl Krakowka feel very welcome — in particular, thanking the mayor for his leadership last year. Hopefully, it is not required in this year’s emergency season, but wishing the best for all of our communities in the Interior and the North.
N. Letnick: In the gallery today, I would like to welcome the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association, which is in B.C. this week to discuss the importance of mental health counselling and the regulation of the profession.
April is Counselling and Psychotherapy Month, and this year’s focus is on environmental health. This focus directs our attention to the profound impacts of our rapidly changing climate on the well-being of Canadians, acknowledging the interconnectedness between environmental factors and psychological wellness.
Would the House please help me welcome president Carrie Foster, B.C. and Yukon director Michael Towers and B.C. chapter president Richard Tatomir.
M. Elmore: I have some very special guests here today in the Legislature from the municipality of Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines. That is also the hometown of my mother. I did not envision I would be actually welcoming friends from my mother’s hometown of Tuburan, Cebu.
We have the mayor of Tuburan, Cebu, Aljun Diamante; with his wife, Teresita Diamante; their daughter Jan Diamante; as well as attorneys Rheneir Mora and Manuel Gordon from the Gordon Mora Diamante law firm.
They are accompanied by Felix Majica and Jelinda Friend, members of the Cebuano Society of British Columbia here in Vancouver.
They are here to participate in the Lapu-Lapu Day block party. There we are — up there. They are bringing organic coffee, Tuburan 360. They have a vision for Tuburan as an agricultural sector, all-organic, really leading the country.
They’re here, so invite everybody. Come try some organic Tuburan coffee. Join the festivities. Everybody’s invited.
I ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.
E. Ross: There are two Kitimats in British Columbia. There’s a Haisla Nation Kitamaat, the original founders of Kitimat, but there’s also the district of Kitimat — different spellings. The district of Kitimat is an industrial town that was actually built and owned by Alcan, the aluminum smelter company, back in the 1950s.
Following up on the Minister of Transportation’s introduction, I had no idea that April 25, 1974, was the carnation celebration of freedom. I had no idea. I grew up with Portuguese students and citizens in Kitimat. I played soccer with them. I played basketball with them. Now that they’re older, we’re playing golf together.
Anyway, the Portuguese community was a huge community in Kitimat. They helped build the town. They helped build the smelter. Now that population is thinning out because the younger generation is moving away.
The consul general…. I had dinner with him, João Paulo Costa, in Kitimat on April 13. I understand he is here today as well to visit the Legislature.
I would like to add my welcome to the Legislature to the consul general of Portugal.
R. Glumac: I would like to introduce one of my constituents that is here today from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Brandon Dyck.
Would the House please make him feel welcome.
I think I have another constituent here, but my glasses are not for distance. Is that Jeff up there?
Okay. Jeff McClellan, another constituent of mine.
Please, would the House make him feel welcome.
J. Sturdy: I have the pleasure today to make two introductions.
Firstly, in the gallery is my friend, Tim Stanley. Tim is here in his role as past chair of the ACEC-BC, but he’s also a constituent of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky as well as a long-serving and some would say long-suffering president of my B.C. United West Vancouver–Sea to Sky riding association. I’d like to publicly take this opportunity to thank him for his years and years of hard work, commitment and creativity.
Secondly, on the precinct is a class from Coast Mountain Academy, which is a university prep school for students from grade 10 through grade 12 located in Squamish. Coast Mountain Academy was founded with the goal of creating a culture of curiosity, compassion and inclusivity, while providing an education that’s relevant in our modern world. Coast Mountain Academy offers a rigorous academic program in the context of a well-rounded fine arts, athletics and outdoor education program.
I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon for a discussion about politics in British Columbia.
D. Davies: I do have a couple of folks in the chamber that I’d like to introduce, Sean and Katie Lloyd. I have tried to look everywhere. It’s like finding Waldo. I don’t know where they are, but they are in the chamber somewhere.
Sean, originally from Fort St. John, now lives in Salmon Arm, is down here picking his daughter, Katie, up, who is attending UVic.
Would the House please make them feel welcome.
K. Falcon: I seek leave to introduce a bill.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M212 — NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
K. Falcon presented a bill intituled Name Amendment Act, 2024.
K. Falcon: This legislation would prevent those convicted of dangerous offences from legally changing their names.
British Columbians were horrified to learn last week that convicted child killer Allan Schoenborn was allowed to change his name. The government had every opportunity to prevent this monster’s application for a name change with provincial powers under the Name Act, but they chose to do nothing.
Currently Vital Statistics, under the Ministry of Health, has complete authority to deny any change of name application that is “sought for an improper purpose or is on any other ground objectionable.” This government failed to use that to prevent Schoenborn’s name change.
Since British Columbians cannot rely on government to exercise their authority to prevent such unacceptable name changes for dangerous criminals like Schoenborn, this legislation will force government to reject them by default, automatically preventing those who have been designated as a dangerous or long-term offender under the Canadian Criminal Code from filing applications to change their name, instead relying on government discretion.
This is not complicated. In fact, this bill is based substantially on existing legislation in Alberta and technically sound from a legislative drafting perspective, so there is no reason why this bill should not, and could not, be called for debate and passed immediately.
The Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: Now, Member, because the House didn’t have the information in advance, in order to place this on orders of the day, the member would also seek another leave from the House.
K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would seek leave to put it on the order paper today.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.
K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading after today.
Bill M212, Name Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
KELOWNA ROCKETS HOCKEY TEAM
R. Merrifield: Today I rise to speak about a subject that is very close to my heart, my Kelowna Rockets and their remarkable 2023-2024 season.
As a 20-year season ticket holder, my evenings have often been highlighted by the thrilling games and the vibrant community spirit that defines our Rockets team. This year, the Rockets demonstrated exceptional skill on the ice, making it into the second round of playoffs. They were defeated by Prince George. But I can take comfort in knowing that at least it’s on a friendly side of the aisle. And at least it wasn’t a building year like the Kamloops Blazers.
Now, I can talk about our outstanding scoring, skating and strategy, but our Rockets are so much more. The owners, the Hamilton family, ensure that the players and organization are relentless in their efforts to contribute positively, going beyond expectations.
This commitment to the community was vividly demonstrated by Ty Hurley, one of our Rockets players who performed a heroic act at one of the hotels by saving a man’s life. On December 7, 2023, while waiting in a hotel lobby, Hurley noticed a man struggling in the pool. He quickly intervened, pulling the man out and performing life-saving chest compressions until he revived. For his bravery, 19-year-old Hurley received the Silver Medal of Merit and the M.G. Griffiths Award at the 112th annual Commonwealth Awards for Honour and Rescue.
The Kelowna Rockets are amazing athletes, but this story shows what a source of immense local pride and inspiration they are to all of us, including our youth. They bring us together in ways that make us so proud to be a part of our great city.
Thank you to the Kelowna Rockets, the Hamiltons, the players and the staff not just for the great hockey this season but for being phenomenal community contributors.
And to all those diehard Rockets fans like I am, we will get that cup next year.
Go, Rockets, go.
CHILD CARE FACILITIES IN
CAMPBELL RIVER
SCHOOLS
M. Babchuk: In my role as MLA for North Island, I constantly hear how life-changing it is for families to have access to affordable, quality and inclusive child care. That’s why, as the past chair of the school district 72 board of education, I am happy to stand today and talk about the fantastic made-in-school-district-72 initiative, in conjunction with CUPE 723.
Child care on school sites has been a topic in this district for many years, and I was excited to witness the opening of the first site at Ripple Rock Elementary on Friday, April 12. This is the first of seven before- and after-school care facilities that will be opened by September, providing 210 additional spaces for parents to access.
This just makes sense, that families have the convenience of child care and school all in one seamless place. A seamless drop-off on the way to work makes life so much easier for families and gives parents peace of mind that their children are in one place for the entire day.
In addition to benefits to families, the collaborative work between the school district and CUPE means that more educational assistants will have access to full-time employment close to home. They will no longer have to travel outside their community or look to work multiple jobs.
I would like to thank the people of school district 72, especially board chair Kat Eddy and vice-chair Craig Gillis for their leadership; superintendent Geoff Manning and Phil Cizmic, associate superintendent responsible for child care; along with a long list of professionals that made this come to fruition.
Andrea Craddock, a long-time advocate for child care in our community and president of 723, not only understood the value of child care for families but also the opportunity for her members and for the community.
Thank you to the ministers of state, past and present, for seeing the value in this child care delivery model and the investment in child care on the north Island.
Congratulations to school district 72 and CUPE 723.
Partnership truly is the new leadership, Mr. Speaker.
NEW KIJHL MUSTANGS HOCKEY TEAM
IN WILLIAMS
LAKE
L. Doerkson: I’m pleased to rise today and take a few minutes to speak about the beloved sport of hockey in Cariboo-Chilcotin as well today. There have been many greats that have come from our hockey programs — names like Carey Price and Rusty Patenaude but also Christina, Margatz, Gerrier, Williamson, Thomas, Zirak, Curly and Alexander. Frankly, far too many to list.
Today I want to share news of a new hockey team we have in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Hockey fans will now have twice the excitement in Williams Lake, as we have a new KIJHL hockey team, the Mustangs. This addition will help to strengthen the league and provide a natural rival for the 100 Mile Wranglers.
This coming season, the Wranglers will be led by coach Levi Stewart. He is a welcome addition to the club, and his experience will help these young players develop their skill.
The Mustangs will be coached by Tyrel Lucas, who is part of an amazing group of owners who are enthusiastic about hockey and the boost that it will give to the region. They bring decades of hockey experience at all levels and will help incorporate the team into our community.
The Mustangs is an iconic and historic hockey club in Williams Lake. Many of us recall numerous Mustangs alumni and look forward to cheering the players on and definitely welcoming everyone to the community.
The spring camps have been done, and the coaches are now working on their rosters. Young players from around the province have tried out and are waiting to see if they’ll be chosen to play.
We thank the new owners of the Williams Lake Mustangs for bringing their team to the Cariboo-Chilcotin. We welcome the new players, their families and all the fans. For years, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, of course, has supported our Wranglers. We will now have an amazing new team to cheer for.
I am sure that I will find myself incredibly conflicted every time these two teams play, but trust me when I say this, Mr. Speaker: I will be rooting for both of them.
Welcome to the Cariboo-Chilcotin.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
AND CIVILITY IN PUBLIC
DISCOURSE
R. Russell: I’m sure, as many of us in this place…. I really love getting the opportunity to go and meet with school groups, talk with the students, talk with the teachers and learn what’s on their mind. I appreciate their unfiltered, unbaggaged and beholden thoughts and questions.
I had the opportunity to visit Christina Lake Elementary School students. Their top question, of course, was around Macey the cat and the introduction of Macey the cat.
The second most important part of their conversation was around the culture of this place. It was a fascinating conversation. They asked about what they see, which is question period, and if that represents how we engage with each other outside of that forum.
Fast-forward a week. I had the opportunity to meet with community leaders at the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments over the weekend. The number one liveliest debate resolution that they brought forward was around discourse and treating each other civilly and the interactions between the public as well as elected officials. I think it is fascinating, this convergence around what we see out in the public, around the challenge, the crisis, I would say, that we have around civil discourse and the decline in civility in interactions between people.
I think in this place…. It is fascinating, in the conversation with these grades 4 and 5, to say: “What is our obligation in this place, as leaders, as a group of people that are being watched around the province, to lead by example?” Maybe, perhaps, we should be operating a little more in this place as we would hope a grade 4 or 5 class would engage with each other.
ACCESS TO SAFE WATER AND CLEAN AIR
S. Furstenau: Nearly 13 years ago we moved from Victoria to Shawnigan. Up until then, I’d had the privilege and the fortune to not have to think about drinking water. I had taken it for granted that I could turn a tap and safe water would come out.
My time in Shawnigan taught me to value water far more than I ever did before. Not only did our community fight to protect our drinking water, but I’ve also experienced what it’s like when a well goes dry and no water at all comes out. We can only survive without water for a matter of days.
Ten years ago I started thinking about air. We woke up one summer morning, and the sky was a deep orange. I put out a Facebook post. It said: “Orange sky by morning, climate change warning.” It was our first smoke-filled summer.
In the summer since then, I have found myself wondering if I can do the things that help me feel well, cycling or jogging or hiking, or if these activities will harm me because of the smoky pollution that will burn my throat and cause my lungs to tighten and ache. My kids have had to endure smoky skies for more than half of their summers. We had childhoods free of smoke, free of fires, free of heat domes.
The particulate matter in the air does more than irritate us. It kills. Air pollution is responsible for seven million deaths globally each year. The thing we depend on most for our survival, air, is increasingly causing us harm.
Take a breath, savour the feeling of full lungs, and then ask: how much effort should we be putting into making sure that our kids and their kids can know that they, too, will be able to breathe easy in the summers ahead?
ALISON O’TOOLE AND CONTRIBUTIONS
TO ARTS AND
EDUCATION
J. Rice: I rise today to shine a light on my nominee for the 2024 B.C. Achievement Community Award, Alison O’Toole.
She is an extraordinary individual whose contributions have enriched the very essence of our community in Prince Rupert. In the next two weeks, on May 8, I’m happy to say that she will be formally recognized as a recipient of the award.
Alison O’Toole’s dedication to the arts and education has been nothing short of exceptional. For three decades, she has been a driving force behind our performing arts scene, captivating audiences with her annual theatre productions and fostering a sense of belonging among all who participate. Her tireless efforts have had a profound impact on the many lives she has touched and the countless hearts she has uplifted with her art.
Her dedication to fostering emotional intelligence, empathy and self-expression has not only enriched our community but has also empowered generations of students and adults to embrace their true selves and pursue their passions unapologetically.
Her recognition by the Association of B.C. Drama Educators as B.C.’s drama teacher of the year in 2021 is a testament to her unwavering commitment to excellence and her ability to inspire others to reach their full potential. But beyond the accolades, it is the lasting impact she has had on countless lives that truly defines her legacy.
Alison, we celebrate you not only as a deserving recipient of this award but also as a beacon of hope and unity in our community. Your passion, your dedication and your unwavering spirit serve as an inspiration to us all.
Please join me in congratulating Alison O’Toole, a true champion of the arts, a pillar of our community and a shining example of what it means to make a difference.
R. Parmar: Can I seek leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
R. Parmar: I have two sets of introductions. I’ll be very brief. I know everyone is excited for question period.
I can’t be in here and not introduce my friend Kody Bell, who is very familiar to the people in this House.
Keep your phones away from Kody Bell. He is the Kodester.
He used to be my constituent. He used to be the constituent of my predecessor as well. He’s now the constituent of the MLA for Saanich South. So we had a long drive this morning, out to Saanich South, to pick him up. We stopped by Tim Hortons in hopes of getting some Smile Cookies. We’ve got to wait a week before they come out.
Kody has been a good friend of mine and a good friend of former Premier John Horgan. It’s great to see him in this House. He reminded me that he’s famous. He’s in Richard Zussman’s book. Everyone should read it.
Would the House please join me in making Kody feel very welcome here today.
Mr. Speaker, while they’re not in the House and I know you won’t let me interrupt question period, the Ruth King Rockets are in the House here today with incredible staff, parent volunteers, Kelly — a grade 5 class just across the street from my community office in Langford.
Will the House please joyously make the Ruth King Rockets welcome in hopes that maybe they hear us in the hallways.
J. Rice: My sincere apologies. I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Rice: This week while the Haida were here in the chambers and 100-and-some were up in the gallery, I had inadvertently made an error, so I’d like to just quickly take a moment to correct that error. Actually, the error happened when I was outside, but in introductions, I failed to make an introduction.
In Haida culture, you need to publicly right that wrong, and you also have to pay the recipients some money, which I will do for Lonnie Young, who is a Hereditary Chief in Kitagat, Gaahlaay.
As I said earlier in my introduction, I talked about the two dialects of Old Massett and Skidegate. With us, I failed to introduce both Hereditary Chiefs representing Old Massett and Skidegate.
I recognize Frank Collison, one of the main Hereditary Chiefs of Old Massett, Stithlda, his name, Frank Collison.
But my apology goes to Chief Lonnie Young Gaahlaay for failing to introduce him.
Lonnie, or Gaahlaay, I do intend to send you a card with money. Thank you.
Oral Questions
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND SUBSTANCE USE
POLICIES
K. Falcon: Under this Premier’s reckless decriminalization experiment, we’ve seen record-breaking drug-related deaths and an explosion of violence.
In our hospitals, nurses are now compelled to hand out crack pipes and needles and even teach users how to inject drugs into their IV lines.
We have businesses profiteering from addiction, exploring business models for the commercialization of cocaine.
His public health officer is aggressively pushing to legalize hard drugs like methamphetamine, heroin and fentanyl, treating them as casually as cannabis.
Secret government reports commissioned under this Premier’s watch look at market impacts and profiting off of legalization.
This radical Premier has consistently championed…
The Speaker: Member.
K. Falcon: …the legalization of dangerous drugs like meth and crack cocaine and driven us to this crisis. British Columbians are tired of this.
When will this Premier finally adopt B.C. United’s policy to end the NDP’s catastrophic decriminalization experiment?
The Speaker: Members must refrain from calling names and attaching labels when people are addressing each other.
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question on an issue that’s important to many British Columbians: on the one hand, the deaths of thousands of British Columbians and their families and their friends who are devastated by those deaths.
There are members in this chamber who have been directly and personally affected and British Columbians across the province who have been affected.
It was in the spirit of addressing this issue, I know, that at one point the Leader of the Opposition was proud of supporting a safe injection site in British Columbia — at the time, a significant thing. There was a lot of public anxiety about it, but it was to prevent deaths. It was to prevent the transmission of HIV and hepatitis.
There was an all-party committee where we sat together and heard from families struggling to get loved ones access to care, struggling to respond and asking for government to try different approaches to deal with this crisis. That’s why both sides of this House and the chiefs of police supported moving ahead with decriminalization.
That doesn’t mean that we accept the disorder on the streets in our communities, people not feeling safe in parks and playgrounds and businesses in our province and hospitals. The Minister of Health is working with health officials right now to ensure that everybody is safe in our hospitals. We’re working with police and key stakeholders to make sure they have the tools they need to address public order issues in British Columbia.
The member says “BCUP policy.” Well, it depends on the day.
I’ll say this to the member. Our commitment is to British Columbians, to support those who are sick with addiction, to get them the help they need, to do our best to keep them alive and to ensure that their communities are safe right across the province.
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Once again, I’m sure the Premier doesn’t mean to mislead the House, but unfortunately, he’s giving information that….
He must know by now, because the record has been corrected multiple times, that when he tries to suggest that the official opposition ever supported decriminalization, he knows that’s wrong. In fact, we not only not supported it, but we made it very clear to this Premier and his reckless government approach to decriminalization that it wasn’t going to work.
In fact, it was this Premier and his government…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
K. Falcon: …that in 2020 had in their own election campaign promise that they were going to fast-track the decriminalization of drugs. Any claim that the all-party Health Committee played a role or endorsed the NDP’s effort to fast-track implementation of decriminalization is utterly false. The decisions were made before that committee was ever struck.
Only in the NDP’s British Columbia could you have a situation where you’ve got an 80-year-old patient lying next to someone smoking a crack pipe. But that’s the reality under this Premier and this NDP government. Despite record-breaking deaths and criminal activity…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
K. Falcon: …the Premier stubbornly defends his catastrophic decriminalization policy.
His push to expand these measures to full legalization of heroin, meth and fentanyl has deep roots. The Premier once wrote on Facebook….
Interjections.
K. Falcon: You might want to listen to this. I quote the Premier.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members, the Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor.
K. Falcon: The Premier once wrote on Facebook: “We’re in favour of the legalization and regulation of all currently illicit drugs.”
British Columbians have had enough.
After seeing the disastrous consequences of his policies, how can British Columbians trust a Premier who has long championed such extreme views to fix the disaster caused by his reckless and failed decriminalization experiment?
Hon. D. Eby: British Columbians are concerned about the deaths. They are concerned about making sure that people have a chance to stay alive to get into treatment. They want to make sure, as well, that their communities are safe.
These are perfectly reasonable and understandable concerns that are shared by everybody on this side of the House, and we will ensure we deliver those things to the extent we are able to do so with the powers that we have here in the Legislative Assembly. Those are our goals for a B.C. where we treat people with compassion and understanding and we also make sure that communities are safe.
Now, the member has his own revisionist history, but it was an all-party committee that came together and ratified….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, Members.
Members will be….
Enough, Members.
Hon. D. Eby: The current House Leader, who sits beside the Leader of the Opposition, stood in this place and said: “We support that. We support that report.”
Interjections.
Hon. D. Eby: It was the all-party committee.
Now, I understand that they don’t want to admit that. That’s okay. But for us in government, we have to work with the reality on the ground of making sure that people are supported in getting into treatment…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members will come to order, please.
Hon. D. Eby: …and that communities are safe. We’re going to continue to do that work for British Columbians.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Members on both sides, when a question is asked, we expect the other side to be quiet. And when the answer is provided, we have the same expectation from the other side. Please, let’s follow it.
R. Merrifield: People are not safe. British Columbians are exhausted. And they’re exhausted by this Premier’s extreme policies.
Despite the record level of drug-related deaths and crime, this Premier refuses to back down on decriminalizing hard drugs like meth, heroin and fentanyl. But perhaps he refuses to back down because deep down he actually wants to go further to full legalization. He told the media: “If you want to take your welfare check and spend the whole thing on crack, that’s your right.”
How can British Columbians trust a Premier who, despite the devastating consequences we see every day, refuses to back down and continues to push for the full legalization of hard drugs?
Hon. D. Eby: I’ve been clear, and I’ll say it again. We’re going to do everything we can to ensure people are able to access treatment, they’re able to stay alive to be able to access treatment…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: …and to make sure that our communities are safe. We’re going to continue to do that work.
To the members on the other side, just to refresh their memories, the Leader of the Opposition, September 23, 2023, Today in B.C. podcast: “Some of the chiefs of police were supportive of decriminalization. What they were supportive of is not charging people for small amounts of drugs, and I agree with that.”
The member for Surrey South, February 27, 2023: “The minister talked about decriminalization, and it has been made clear that all parties had supported decriminalization.”
Member for Surrey South again, March 3, 2023…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Members will come to order, please.
Member for Surrey South….
Hon. D. Eby: …CBC: “I don’t want to come across as not in favour, because through the Select Standing Committee on Health, we have supported. The NDP will try to tell you that we are backtracking on decrim, which is not the case. We’re not backtracking on decrim. We’re not backtracking on the need for harm reduction. Does it mean that our party doesn’t support decrim or harm reduction? Absolutely not. We do. With our whole hearts, we want to save people.”
Interjections.
The Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission has a supplemental.
The member for Kelowna-Mission has the floor.
Members. Members.
R. Merrifield: If the Premier is so convinced that we support decriminalization over here on this side, I would welcome a vote in which we can all stand and actually be noted.
What I didn’t hear from the Premier’s response just now, was actually that he wasn’t marching us full headstrong into legalization of all hard drugs. Despite the escalating chaos, the government’s public health officer aims to expand and fully legalize hard drugs like meth, crack cocaine, fentanyl, akin to the cannabis legalization. The government conceded it commissioned Dr. Caulkins to evaluate expanding this disastrous drug policy but continues to withhold the secret report, even hiding behind a non-disclosure agreement. Surprise, surprise.
British Columbians are demanding that this government adopt B.C. United’s policy to end the Premier’s reckless and failed decriminalization experiment, yet behind closed doors, the NDP is doubling down to legalize and profit from meth, cocaine and fentanyl.
Will the Premier release Dr. Caulkins’ secret report today and assure British Columbians that not another cent of taxpayer money will be wasted on expanding their failed experiment to decriminalize dangerous hard drugs?
Interjection.
The Speaker: Members, the question has already been asked. Please wait for your turns.
Hon. D. Eby: The member knows what she’s saying is not true. She knows that because I can read the quotes from the member who’s sitting literally beside her.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member, there is no need for interjections, please.
Member for Surrey South. This is the second time I’m warning the member for Surrey South.
Please. The Premier has the floor.
Hon. D. Eby: “Does it mean that our party doesn’t support decrim or harm reduction? Absolutely not. We do. With our whole hearts, we want to save people.”
Interjection.
Hon. D. Eby: Oh, it’s the Leader of the Opposition, in that case. So that’s just one member.
How about the Leader of the Opposition?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, Members.
Members, calm down. Please, let’s wait for the answer. If the answer is not acceptable, sure, you can ask a next question.
Members, no arguments.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, no arguments, please.
Hon. D. Eby: I just don’t know exactly which quote of the leader is accurate. March 13 in Chinese social media: “I have never supported decriminalization.” September 23, 2023, Today in B.C.podcast: “Some of the chiefs of police were supportive of decriminalization. What they were supportive of is not charging people for small amounts of drugs, and I agree with that.”
It’s hard to understand the BCUP policy because it changes week to week to week. If the member wants to be quoted accurately, I’m happy to do that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
The House Leader, Third Party, has the floor now.
Members, later on we will be complaining that not enough time was given to the opposition for questions, so let’s please keep that in mind.
STATUS AND INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT
OF CONSERVATION
OFFICER SERVICE
A. Olsen: Today I ask my question on behalf of nature and more than 600 bears and their orphan cubs.
The B.C. conservation officer service is essentially the Environment Minister’s own little army. It’s a heavily armed service of special provincial constables with unlimited appointments, no constabulary independence, no arms-length oversight. Unlike other constables, under section 106 of the Environmental Management Act, the B.C. conservation officer service is “under the direction of that minister.”
As I learned from the Environment Minister’s colleague this week, the only way for the conservation service to have basic independence, the basic independence and arms-length oversight that British Columbians expect from people with those unlimited appointments, is for the Environment Minister to ask.
In my response today, will he turn to his colleague and ask that the B.C. conservation service be designated a police or law enforcement service effective immediately?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.
Notwithstanding the fact that characterizing the women and men who work in the conservation officer service, protecting communities, valued by communities, protecting wildlife and generally ensuring that activities around the interface between humans and animals and the safety of animals and nature against poachers and others, are dedicated; they’re the furthest thing possible from a private army directed by a minister.
There is a chain of command in the conservation officer service.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member.
Hon. G. Heyman: The Solicitor General and I have had many conversations around the appropriate oversight and phasing different bodies into the Police Act since a decision of the courts affirmed that the conservation officer service was, in fact, in certain circumstances, a special constabulary.
What I will tell you is that the conservation officer service supports the implementation of third-party oversight as a tool to enhance transparency and public trust. We are working on that.
We currently also have measures in place that provide for oversight and response to complaints. We have a new position, the inspector of provincial standards, to monitor and provide oversight of complaints. We are working with other bodies. We developing a response to the public that wants to see oversight.
The member can shake his head, as he often does when I provide factual answers, but they are the facts.
The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
A. Olsen: The minister knows where the chain of command ends, and it’s at his feet. That’s where the chain of command ends. It’s unique for people with these unlimited appointments to be under the direction of a minister. In fact, all we need to do is go back to the bill debate this week for the Minister of Public Safety to admit that he doesn’t have the same powers over people with these unlimited appointments as the Minister of Environment does.
So I am shaking my head for good reason, because the people that he characterized, good people, in the B.C. conservation service, don’t have the basic level of safety and security that their colleagues who are working for municipal police services have. We expect that. That’s the confidence that we can have in our police services when we give them these powers.
That’s the expectation that the people that they work alongside…. The RCMP officers, the municipal police services expect that the people working alongside them have the same oversight. That doesn’t exist in this province, and it was a basic admission from the Minister of Public Safety earlier this week.
I wonder why it is that the Minister of Environment wouldn’t want the people who investigate crimes against nature to have independence in those investigations. When was the last time that we saw, in this province, an environmental investigation lead to charges of any level of seriousness? I wonder why that’s the case.
Anyway, we can’t sell that we have got this exceptional framework in this province…
The Speaker: Question, Member.
A. Olsen: …gloating that we have world-class resource extraction standards, if our nature cops are the enforcement puppets of the cabinet minister.
The Speaker: Question, Member.
A. Olsen: My question to the Minister of Environment: will he turn to his colleague the Minister of Public Safety and ask him today, right now in front of the people of British Columbia, to designate the B.C. conservation officer service as a police or law enforcement service effective immediately?
Hon. G. Heyman: It is sad that the member opposite, the House Leader for the Third Party, simply can’t hear or comprehend the answers that are given.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Let the minister….
Members. Members, we are wasting time in question period. Please.
The minister will conclude.
Hon. G. Heyman: I have never said I don’t support independent oversight. In fact, I do.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member. Member.
Hon. G. Heyman: In fact, the conservation officer service has adopted the practice of hiring an external lawyer to conduct investigations into any alleged serious misconduct complaints.
We will continue to look at new measures and are currently looking at new measures to ensure that the public can have trust that their complaints are handled independently with integrity and transparently.
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
B. Banman: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result. That is exactly what this B.C. NDP government is doing with their radical and experimental decriminalization of hard drugs.
Decriminalization was introduced by the B.C. NDP and supported by B.C. United, who voted in favour of it.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Interjections.
B. Banman: I would remind this House….
[The Speaker rose.]
The Speaker: Members.
[The Speaker resumed their seat.]
The Speaker: The member will continue.
B. Banman: I would remind this House of when the member from South Thompson stood up and yelled, “Of course, we support decriminalization,” and he got a standing ovation from that team when he did it.
B.C. has set a record of 2,511 suspected illicit drug deaths since 2023, despite the NDP decriminalization pilot. Jurisdictions like Oregon are now reversing their decriminalization programs because they have figured it out. Decriminalization does not work. When this NDP Premier inevitably decides…
The Speaker: Question, Member.
B. Banman: …to reverse decriminalization or, better yet, when he gets his best buddy Trudeau…
The Speaker: Let’s have a question, Member.
B. Banman: …to pull the plug in exchange for keeping the Liberal NDP carbon tax, will this NDP Premier commit to compensating the families of the victims who died as a result of his radical experiment, or will he try to sweep it under the rug?
Hon. J. Whiteside: The member opposite is right that we lost 2,539 British Columbians last year to an unprecedented public health emergency. In fact, we have just acknowledged and commemorated the eighth anniversary of the toxic drug crisis, a crisis that not only British Columbians are grappling with but every single jurisdiction across the country, across the continent — communities who are in the grips of a fentanyl crisis, an illicit drug supply that is poisoned, that is contaminated with high concentrations of vicious drugs that are killing people.
That is the context in which we are working to bring every single tool we can to support people who are struggling with addictions, to keep them alive so we can connect them to care, to support their families, to build out those pathways, to support our health care workers who are in the trenches day after day trying to match and keep up with the viciousness of organized crime and predatory drug dealers who are doing this to our communities.
We are going to continue to do that work. We are going to continue to use every single tool that we can to protect our communities.
The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
B. Banman: The biggest drug dealers in this province are now this government.
The Speaker: Member.
B. Banman: There is no justification…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Member will withdraw that comment, please.
B. Banman: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
There is no justification for keeping a policy that has endangered so many British Columbians. This is dogma, not science. I truly hope the Premier would reverse course on his radical policy instead of doubling down.
The commonsense approach of the Conservative Party of B.C. is to prioritize prevention and recovery so we can get people back to living healthy lives. But it sounds like the Conservatives will have to wait to introduce commonsense policies after we form government in October.
In the meantime…
The Speaker: Question, Member. Question.
B. Banman: …I will ask the question again. Will this NDP government compensate families of victims who have died as a result of this radical experiment of decriminalizing drugs?
Hon. J. Whiteside: This is indeed a very, very serious question, very serious for the people who are watching, potentially, these proceedings. It’s very serious for people who maybe don’t know where to turn for help if they’re struggling with an addiction, where they need to reach out and get care.
I want people to know, I want British Columbians to know we are doing everything that we can to make access possible to connect them to care, that there are places where they can reach out and get help.
This is a terrible scourge that we are experiencing. Our neighbours next door in Alberta saw a 17 percent increase in mortality last year. Saskatchewan, a devastating increase in mortality there.
We know that it is absolutely critical that we work across the whole continuum, that we make those investments in treatment. We have made unprecedented investments to stand up treatment beds, to stand up access. We’re going to continue to do that work with our partners.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM
AND RESPONSE TO
ISSUES
S. Robinson: On Monday, the Premier extended a Passover greeting, noting the dramatic rise in antisemitism. Yet his touted responses — Holocaust education, anti-racism funding and a racist incident hotline — are all long-standing initiatives that have been years in the making.
We have a community under attack, and the only thing new that government can muster is financial help to hire additional security. These measures do not address the immediate and escalating threats facing the Jewish community today. I know that the Premier and the Attorney General spoke with the special envoy for Holocaust remembrance and antisemitism just yesterday.
I want to know: when will the Premier finally take the rise of antisemitism seriously, put a real, actual plan together that specifically targets and combats antisemitism in our schools, in our post-secondary institutions and in the public service?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows we take racism very seriously. I’ve shared with the member, in the multiple times the member has raised questions around this, the list of things we’ve done. I won’t repeat them again.
I can share with the member that on April 17, we provided $200,000 to the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver. I think it’s important to note that these dollars are called for by the community.
Jason Murray, who is the chair of the community security advisory committee for the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, said: “This announcement will help provide relief to our organizations to provide services to children, seniors, families and the most vulnerable people in our community.”
The work we’re doing continues. We continue to engage with the community.
The Premier and the Attorney General also just met last week with the special envoy for preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting antisemitism. It was important to note that the special envoy said: “B.C. is leading the country in doing innovative work — work on reporting hate crimes, work on tackling the scourge of hate and antisemitism.”
We understand there’s fear in the community. We’re committed to continue to work with the community to ensure that people feel safe in our communities. This is something we’re committed to. This is not something that we just started doing. This is work that we’ve been doing since 2017, since we formed government.
M. Lee: When the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville stands up in this House, as she did to remark upon the Passover statement yesterday in two-minute statements, you need to hear her. All members of this House need to hear her. She has taken the step to step off and resign from the cabinet. She has taken the step to resign from the government caucus, and she’s now on this side of the House asking some very important questions on behalf of not just the Jewish community but all communities concerned about civil society.
When we have any person in this province who has to live in fear from being targeted on our streets, in our communities, on university and college campuses for who they are…. All we hear from this government, from this Premier and this Attorney General, who don’t have the common decency to stand up in this House to address the serious questions that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been asking…. It has been over six months.
The fact that the Premier and Attorney General have now reached out to the special envoy to deal with antisemitism in Canada…. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been speaking with that special envoy on a weekly basis since November, and that member had been leading the charge to address antisemitism on university and college campuses with other Ministers of Education across Canada.
The Speaker: Question, Member.
M. Lee: And this Premier chose to sack her. What kind of action is that?
The Speaker: Question, Member.
M. Lee: Mr. Speaker, we have a community under attack, and all the government can muster is financial help to hire additional security from that attack. This Premier’s dismissive approach to evident antisemitism with this government and caucus, as called on…
The Speaker: Does the member have a question?
M. Lee: …by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, has deeply eroded public trust. Immediate steps should include adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism into law and taking concrete action now to stamp out antisemitism in our province, which is so pervasive.
The Speaker: The member will ask a question.
M. Lee: But any steps, first and foremost, must be an independent and transparent inquiry into antisemitism within his NDP party…
The Speaker: Member.
M. Lee: …and within caucus and the cabinet. That is crucial.
The Speaker: Question, Member.
M. Lee: Will the Premier commit to these immediate and necessary actions today?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to start by saying I respect the work the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville did around addressing antisemitism. I respect the work that she did standing up to anti-LGBTQ hate in her community. The member knows that. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve said it on numerous occasions.
The member asked questions, and I shared the things we were doing, significant things. The special envoy said that we’ve made significant steps. We know there’s more work to do.
With all due respect to the member across the way, I will not be taking lessons from him on how to address anti-racism or antisemitism. I will not.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I can get to you too.
The Speaker: Member.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Shhh, Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: This is a party that, when they had the opportunity when they were on this side, do you know what they did? They created a quick-win document, which said: “You know what? How can we take political advantage of people’s struggles?” That’s what these guys did.
When we brought people….
Interjections.
Hon. R. Kahlon: This is important, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members, let the minister conclude, please.
Interjection.
The Speaker: That’s enough, Member.
Hon. R. Kahlon: When we brought people who have faced racism in our communities to the chamber when we introduced the anti-racism legislation…. The person who just spoke, the critic — do you know what he called it in the Legislature? He said it’s a stunt.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Hon. R. Kahlon: He called it a stunt.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Let me just end with this. If the members want to hear the answer.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members will come to order now. Members, shhh.
Members, please, let’s be quiet for a minute.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Let me end with this. We take antisemitism, any form of hate against anyone very seriously. We constantly are pushing back against that. I’ve listed a whole host of things that we’ve done since the vicious attacks on October 17.
We are committed to continue to work to make sure people feel safe in this community. If the member has suggestions, I’m always happy to hear her suggestions.
[End of question period.]
Points of Order
T. Stone: I just want to take this opportunity, post–question period, to move a point of order. While we completely understand and appreciate that there can be rhetorical flourish and rhetoric in question period, it is also important that the exchange that we have in this place be factual and that it be truthful.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Please continue. You have the floor.
T. Stone: During question period, the member for Abbotsford South made a very clear statement that was completely untrue, where he said that there was a vote held on decriminalization and that the official opposition voted in favour of that vote.
There has never been a vote on decriminalization. Therefore, the official opposition has not voted on that matter at all. If there was a vote, we would vote no. We have said that over and over.
We told this government decriminalization wouldn’t work. The only party that was committed to decriminalization was the NDP. They had it in their platform in 2020.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
T. Stone: It was the NDP government that actually sought the exemption from Health Canada in the first place before the provincial Health Committee had actually held a single meeting. There were no votes on this matter whatsoever.
Therefore, if truth actually matters to the member for Abbotsford South, I would ask that the member resume his place in this chamber and that he retract his comments that he made earlier today.
E. Sturko: I, too, rise on a point of order. I think that it probably wasn’t intentional. I think that context does matter when speaking about quotes.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The member has the floor.
E. Sturko: It’s important to note that while there were initially talks and discussions about decriminalization, and I was encouraged in listening even to words from this government about decriminalization, there were assurances that guardrails would be put in place.
I think it’s important to note that, looking at the context of how those guardrails were ignored and how time and again we have now heard evidence from police and other experts come forward about the fact that more and more safety issues have been brought up…. I think that it is quite misleading to use quotes from me that came at a time when we were all under the belief that this government would uphold the guardrails that it has failed to do.
The Speaker: Members, the Chair would like to point out that the points of order are noted for the record as points of clarification under Standing Order 42(1).
I want to say thank you to both members for speaking up. Thank you so much.
Petitions
H. Yao: I rise to present a petition to the House with 64 signatures for parents seeking help preserving the UTP allowance, known as the transition program for gifted students.
The Speaker: Thank you. One more?
H. Yao: I rise to present a petition to the House with 9,894 signatures regarding a request for a substance prevention education program in B.C.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 27 on the order paper.
Government Motions on Notice
MOTION 27 — REFERRAL OF
CIVIL FORFEITURE ACT REVISION
TO
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 27, which outlines the terms of reference for the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper.
[That the revision of the Civil Forfeiture Act (S.B.C. 2005, c. 29) be presented to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for examination and recommendation pursuant to section 3 and 4 of the Statute Revision Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 440).
That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills be empowered to:
a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
c. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,
d. retain personnel as required to assist the Committee.
That the Committee report to the House as soon as possible, and that during a period of adjournment, the Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.]
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call third reading of Bill 19, Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act.
In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 17, Police Amendment Act.
In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low-Carbon Innovation.
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 19 — CHILDREN AND FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
Bill 19, Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call seconding reading of Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
(continued)
M. Lee: I am pleased to rise again to continue with my remarks on second reading to Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.
Let me just start by saying that I appreciate the ongoing dialogue with the Council of the Haida Nation. I’ve had further opportunity to have some discussion with a representative yesterday after I first spoke.
I look forward, with the Leader of the Official Opposition, to have further dialogue with representatives of the Council of the Haida Nation early next week. That dialogue is important. I am grateful to the council for initiating that, when they reached out and met with me in my office just after Minister Rankin, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, had announced the progress made on a draft agreement between the province of British Columbia and the Haida Nation itself.
I also would like to say that I also recognize the work the Haida Nation has done over decades and in the context of this agreement, as well, and the steps that they’ve taken with the government of British Columbia over 20 years with the former Gordon Campbell–led B.C. Liberal government, for which the Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of the executive council, the progress that was made, particularly after 2004 and the progress that was made under Premier Christy Clark when she was the leader of the B.C. Liberal government as well. And now, of course, Premier John Horgan and this current Premier.
As was said at first reading…. President Alsop and myself had a brief conversation in the corridor before first reading began. President Alsop reminded me that the Haida Nation is not going anywhere. I took that comment in many different ways, but one way to take that comment is that governments of British Columbia will come and go. The Haida Nation will remain on Haida Gwaii, and the recognition of their title is fundamentally important, certainly to the nation but also to our province. That is the path that we’ve been on.
I appreciate, again, that it has been a very, very long path. And I appreciate that there are concerns, just like there were concerns when we were reviewing UNDRIP in this House and in this chamber, in second reading and in committee. When you have members of the official opposition like myself and the Leader of the Official Opposition calling for a pause in the process, it’s meant from a place of getting clarity and understanding.
I appreciate that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, on second reading, took the opportunity to again spell out the government’s view about the agreement in Bill 25, but it’s in part because of the Premier’s positioning of this historic agreement and this bill that we’re concerned. British Columbians need to have a fuller understanding of this new model, this new approach to addressing Aboriginal title in our province, to the extent that the Premier has said repeatedly, and even in this House on first reading, that this will be a template for other approaches relating to title with First Nations.
I recognize all the guests in this chamber that were here on first reading. I said it then, and I said it at the beginning of my second reading speech: I continue to hope that people understand, to hear me when I speak on behalf of the official opposition, that we have tremendous respect for the Haida Nation, the Council of the Haida Nation. That’s the reason why, even under an abridged circumstance a year ago, we supported the act which we’re now amending with Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself.
The concern that we’ve call upon for a pause twice, first on March 22 and again yesterday, to make this Bill 25 an exposure bill — to put a pause on the process back on March 22 before the agreement was entered into and signed — was because we need to have a clearer understanding. I gave reasons for that already in my second reading speech.
I would say, even in this last question period we had prior to this second reading and with the activities and the dynamics in this House and outside of this House, whether it’s on social media or otherwise, that it only underlines my point and my concern. To have a clear, robust discussion of a fundamental change to how we will address title in this province using the Haida Nation as a model, given their unique history and title which we well recognize, that former governments have all recognized over the last number of decades and as recognized by the courts, certainly in the Haida decision of 2004 by the Supreme Court of Canada…. This new model needs further review, evaluation and understanding.
I look at the transcript of the statement of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, having heard it in the chamber yesterday, as well, in person. I’m a lawyer for 20 years. I went to UVic law school, where the minister formerly was a member of faculty. We have a similar understanding, I would expect. He has a longer understanding, as we heard from the Premier, given the work he’s done over 4½ decades.
I have respect for that, but there are questions being asked by members, practitioners in the legal profession that I know this government has heard from and that I’ve heard from, members of the official opposition. There are some serious questions being asked about this whole arrangement, what’s set out in the agreement in terms of the nature of Aboriginal title and how it can be set out.
I know I’ve spoken to the exclusive nature of Aboriginal title. The minister referred to this yesterday: that private property rights are to be held in perpetuity. That’s not in the bill; that’s not in the agreement. I understand what the minister said, but that’s part of the concerns that we will view at committee stage: the nature of the qualification, the confirmation that is set out in the agreement and in the bill relating to fee simple interests and private property rights.
How is it that an agreement can qualify a constitutionally protected right around Aboriginal title, which is exclusive in nature? When you look at the Tsilhqot’in decision by way of application, the court left out private property interests. It was excluded from that. We’ve talked about the communal nature of Aboriginal title as well, and how it is held for generations to come, in this case, of the Haida peoples.
As I’ve said, I appreciate that the Council of the Haida Nation has, I’m sure, gotten their own legal advice on this, but to the extent that this is a model and a template for other First Nations, it is important to understand how Aboriginal title can be qualified in this manner — how, as the minister suggests, that qualification around private property is in perpetuity by way of an agreement, but the agreement specifically doesn’t say that: the use of the words “in perpetuity,” I mean.
How can an agreement do that vis-à-vis, in respect of, the generations that come? How can the current leadership, the governance, constitution…? The Haida Nation has a 50-year constitution. We’ve spoken to that on a number of occasions, to respect and recognize the governance structure of the Haida Nation. Still, how does any governing body currently limit Aboriginal title in a way that will be qualified in use for generations to come?
Aboriginal title under the constitution and through the courts and decisions is inalienable. How is it that there is a positioning here in the arrangement to transfer, in effect, the use of Aboriginal-titled land to third-party private property interests?
These are three of the types of considerations around the nature of Aboriginal title that go to the heart of what is, fundamentally, spoken to here: a series of considerations around the core of the agreement and the bill — the nature of Aboriginal title, the nature of the Aboriginal title that this government is recognizing to be for the Haida Nation, finally. That’s one set.
Another set of considerations is the transition period that’s spoken to in the agreement and, as I mentioned yesterday, is also referred to in some way under clause 2, section 4.4 of the act that’s being amended, under the title “Interim measures in relation to land.” There is an acknowledgment, which is the word that’s used: “The government of British Columbia acknowledges that the measures set out in this section are interim measures….”
This is an area that we will want to have further understanding on from the minister and his team at the committee stage. It is an area that was touched on in my briefing on this bill from the ministry. What I understood at the time is the transition period is what this is speaking to. But the use of the words “transition period” is not in this bill. The steps that are spelled out in the appendix to the agreement, appendix A, “Transition process…” There’s a nine-clause provision. It’s not specifically spoken to in this bill.
I have touched on one area of indication around dispute resolution, which is jurisdictional in nature, between the Haida Nation and the province of British Columbia. There are a number of steps to be taken, to be identified, by way of agreement, on schedule. But if there’s a dispute, if there’s a lack of agreement between the two parties, what does that mean? Clearly, as confirmed again by the minister, the transition period is an important period to consider.
We know that, as identified in appendix A, protected areas and forestry will be the first priority for the negotiations to come over what is expected to be a two-year period. But in the words of the minister, the intention is for the province to step back and provide for Haida Nation management and jurisdiction in matters relating to Haida’s Aboriginal title.
This speaks to an understanding of the transition of jurisdiction. In this first case, over land management, protected areas…. Certainly, under protected areas, there’s been clear understanding — which dates back to that 2010 Act, the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, passed by the former government under Gordon Campbell’s leadership as Premier — that that joint and shared decision-making has been working well.
Here we’re talking about further transference of jurisdiction, though, to the Haida Nation, which is consistent with the fact that government is now recognizing by way of agreement, as they’ve done on April 14 — and I do now have a signed copy of the agreement — and in this bill.
That transfer of jurisdiction authority, which is happening over this two-year transition period, to the extent there is a disagreement about the use of schedule…. Schedule here, in the agreement, means the jurisdictional arrangements, including for protected areas and forestry, that are agreed to by the parties and form part of this agreement.
This does speak to a point that I would make, which is that when we are looking at this bill, all members of this House need to consider the terms of the executed agreement on April 14. That agreement calls for schedules that will form part of this agreement to come in the next two years over this transition period.
This is what we mean when the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself use the term. It’s a promise to figure out details later.
The way this agreement is structured is that the details around land management; the schedules to this agreement; the jurisdictional arrangements, as defined for protected areas, including for protected areas and forestry; all of the jurisdictional arrangements beyond the mirror, beyond the important recognition of Aboriginal title for the Haida Nation…. All the other jurisdictional arrangements are to be worked through, negotiated, determined, spelled out, and schedules to be agreed upon will then form part of the agreement, which are then spoken to in this bill as recognized as interim measures.
The interim measures that apply — which again, do take some unpacking — need to be understood for clarity purposes under 4.4(2), (3) and (4). That’s what they mean. In this interim period, in this intervening period, for the next two years, how is Haida Nation title to be addressed? How are, in (3), enactments of British Columbia that are applied under subsection (2) in relation to the land that is held by Haida Nation an Aboriginal title to be determined consistently with that Aboriginal title in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?
That particular clause in this bill is another example of the understanding — even during this two-year period, the interim period — how enactments of British Columbia are to be applied. Now this government is saying, in this bill, that those enactments will be applied in a way which is consistent with Aboriginal title and section 35 of the Constitution Act. This means, on its face, that somehow there are additional qualifications, so to speak, as to how provincial enactments will be utilized, even though there’s a transition period for which we’re determining jurisdictional arrangements.
So there is a change. We need to understand what that change is. When we’re talking about using this as a model and template for First Nations in respect to title, it’s important that we understand what the structure of this arrangement is.
(a) We recognize your Aboriginal title — perhaps to all of your claim, here, for Haida Gwaii. We’re doing that for the Haida Nation.
(b) We enter into a transition period for two years, or longer or shorter. Here it’s two years. We recognize provincial enactments in the interim measures period needs to be done in a way that’s consistent with your section 35 recognition of your Aboriginal title that we just recognized through the way of this agreement and now with this bill.
And (c) we’re going to figure it out over the next two years, the jurisdictional arrangements that the province will “step back from,” in the words of the minister, in the areas of protected areas and forestry, which are the two first areas identified in this agreement.
Those schedules will form part of the agreement between the First Nation and the provincial government. If there’s a dispute about the schedule, it goes to some options for dispute resolution, which include mediation, arbitration, Haida tribunal, or another mechanism established under Haida law. These are four options, in sequence.
I don’t know that there is a progression, an escalation. Is it first mediation, then arbitration, then Haida tribunal, then another mechanism established under Haida law? What is it? Which one of those four will apply here? That’s important, because if there’s a dispute and not an understanding an agreement on schedule, what does that mean in this two-year transition period? What are the expectations that are held?
This is the reason why, as I said to date in my remarks on second reading on this Bill 25, these are the kinds of important questions that are being asked about this agreement, about this bill. We need to take a pause to seek that clarity.
That pause, in our view, in light of the fact of where we are, in the few weeks that remain in this legislative session, in the few months that remain before the next election, with the dynamics that occur, even in question period today and outside of this House, by other parties in this House, by the government members of this House, by our side too…. We’re all in this. That this is not the time to have this serious discussion…. We need to have a broader discussion.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
That’s the reason why we’re calling for this Bill 25 to be an exposure bill.
Mr. Speaker, seeing that you’re here in this House again, I will just reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment of the debate on Bill 25.
The Speaker: Member, if you wish, you can continue for a few more minutes. That’s fine.
M. Lee: Or I can continue for a few more minutes. Happy to oblige.
I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on my last comment, because again, the reason why we’re asking for this is that it’s not just about members of the official opposition being able to ask questions here or raise points in second reading and committee debate, as we did with UNDRIP, but given the scope of what we’re talking about, the importance of it, we need that broader conversation. We need to ensure that British Columbians have a broader understanding of the direction that we’re heading in with this first-in-Canada approach, not just first in British Columbia. So this is an important model and template, in the words that the Premier has continued to use.
With that, Mr. Speaker, that’s the reason why we’re calling for this to be an exposure bill. This is not the time for British Columbia, in the midst of all the dynamism, let’s say, in the House in question period….
Interjection.
M. Lee: This has been a long time in the making. I hear a member say that, and I’ve recognized that repeatedly. But the fact of the matter is that the path towards reconciliation is not just about the nation-to-nation relationship. It is about the other societal interests, ensuring that there is a balance and understanding and appreciation and recognition that this government is elected to have responsibility for all British Columbians and that we have to bring all of British Columbia and British Columbians along in this path to reconciliation.
Where we don’t do that, there have been serious concerns expressed. We’ve seen that repeatedly in the aftermath of even the adoption and interpretation and application of UNDRIP by this government, by the Land Act amendments, which they pulled back from. We’ve seen continued missteps by this government, a failure to include and involve and bring along British Columbians. This is the reason why we continue to call for this Bill 25 to be made an exposure bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will now reserve my place in the debate and call for adjournment of the debate.
M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. N. Sharma moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 17 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 17; H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:25 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 17, Police Amendment Act, 2024, to order.
Clauses 57 to 59 inclusive approved.
On clause 60.
M. Morris: With respect to sub 40.02(3), it says, for the purpose of section (1), that the director may conduct audits and investigations and inspect records, operations and systems of administration of a board but only if the director gives written notice of the inspection. I wonder if the minister can advise how much notice he needs to give to meet the requirements of this act.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.
There’s no specified time, but it would be informed by administrative law.
Clauses 60 to 79 inclusive approved.
On clause 80.
M. Morris: I’m going to spend a little bit of time on this particular section here. This deals with regulations respecting designated policing. A lot of the questions I have here will pertain to the regulations respecting law enforcement as well.
In the regulations under 74.1, it talks about a number of things. I want to go to sub-subsection (1)(e)(ii)(A).
It talks about “the powers, duties and functions of a designated policing unit and its designated constables, chief officer and deputy chief officers, including, without limitation, regulations that do any of the following: prescribe all or any part of British Columbia as the designated policing area; or prescribe powers, duties or functions for the purposes of section 14.06 (2) [powers, duties and functions of designated policing unit], including in relation to (A) the enforcement of the bylaws of a municipality or regional district, the laws of an Indigenous governing body or other laws, and (B) the care, custody or supervision of persons held in custody.”
One of the first questions I ask is: what are the laws of a governing Indigenous body? Where are they? If the minister can kind of point me in the right direction to what these are.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It would depend on the nature of the nation in the sense that….
I’ll give two examples. For example, for a treaty nation, it would be the treaty laws of that nation. If it was the Indian Act, it would be the bylaws and the land code laws.
M. Morris: With respect to the treaty laws, those laws would be constituted under the conditions of the treaty. Are they recorded in a manner that is fully accessible to enforcement officers of whatever category there might be?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your first question would be yes. To the second, it would be how they’re described in the treaty. The answer to that would also be yes.
M. Morris: I note in the definitions part of the amendment, it talks about the definition of an Indigenous governing body as the same as under DRIPA. It says: “means an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
I’m just wondering if the minister can go into a little bit of detail on that, because that’s pretty broad. That doesn’t refer to treaty, or it doesn’t refer to Indian Act issues. So this appears to be broader to me. I’m just wondering if the minister can explain that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. He’s right. It is broader, and there’s a main reason for that.
Under this section, as I mentioned a moment ago, treaty nations have treaty laws, and the Indian Act has a land code and bylaws. There are other Indigenous governing bodies that don’t have those authorities. Or there could be, as opposed to just “there are.” There could be other Indigenous governing bodies, but they don’t have law-making authorities. If they wanted to do something, then there are other sections of the act that would allow them to be able to do things. That’s why that term is encompassed in this section.
M. Morris: I’m a little concerned about the minister’s answer. It’s vague.
I’m not only speaking as the critic in this role, but I’m speaking as a previous detachment commander and a previous law enforcement officer and district officer in the RCMP. The police don’t enforce ambiguous or nonexistent laws. They have to be constituted under the Charter of Canada. I have enforced bylaws for First Nations bands that are duly constituted by a band council resolution under the authority of the Indian Act. Although I’ve never policed in a treaty area, I am familiar with a lot of the laws that might be pertaining to an existing treaty.
I’m a little alarmed at the broadness of this particular definition and the liabilities, perhaps, that may arise if some young constable is led to believe that he is enforcing the laws of a First Nations governing body. I need some assurances from the minister that whatever laws would be taking place would be duly constituted under the constitution and on how that would act, because he did mention that there are other First Nations governing bodies in the province that need this authority. I’m just wondering what they are.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Under this section, that definition only applies to nations with law-making authorities, either under treaty or under the Indian Act. That is it.
In section 83, the definition will be there, and that will deal with that broader definition outside of this section.
M. Morris: I’ll have to look at that over the lunch break.
I guess where I have trouble with this is the definition of Indigenous governing body, which “means an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35” of the Charter. That’s a pretty broad definition as well. I do understand section 88 of the Indian Act giving powers to band councils to pass resolutions, and I do understand the treaty part.
This is very broad. This is, to me, quite alarming. I’m having trouble trying to balance out what the minister has said with respect to the definition that they have for Indigenous governing body. I still think it’s quite broad.
I will, once we break for lunch, look at section 83, did the minister say? I will have a look at section 83, but we will be coming back after lunch or after our break here, and we will get into this a little bit more at that particular time.
The Chair: Member, do you have a question?
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND LOW CARBON
INNOVATION
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11:26 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members.
I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We’re meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
On Vote 23: ministry operations, $121,111,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. J. Osborne: I do, Madam Chair, and thank you. I’ll try to be short because I know time is of the essence. We’ll have a short beginning this morning, but we’ll have all afternoon.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, he’s happy.
Let me just say, first of all, that I’m really pleased to be here as we consider and debate the budget estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. I’m grateful to see my critic, the member for Kootenay East, in the House here. I’m sure others will join him and that we’ll have members from the other parties as well. I look forward to their questions and the dialogue ahead.
I do want to acknowledge we are meeting here together on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples.
I’m really grateful to have a phenomenal team of staff with me today to support our time in estimates. That includes my deputy minister to my left here, Shannon Baskerville.
As well, we have…. I’m going to introduce them all so I won’t need to repeat this in the future: assistant deputy ministers Les MacLaren, Nate Amann-Blake, Nat Gosman, Tania Demchuk and George Warnock.
I will also be supported by the B.C. Energy Regulator commissioner, Michelle Carr. Joining us from B.C. Hydro, we have CEO Chris O’Reilly. We have Ryan Leighton as well. The CFO for the ministry is being supported by Raman Dale, for the CFO. So thank you very much.
We have a lot of staff online who are working to support, and I want to thank them as well.
Just a few comments about the ministry so that I have an opportunity to talk about some of the good work. As my colleagues here in the room know, our ministry is small, but it does have accountability for B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Energy Regulator and some of the largest sectors of our economy.
Before we get into the debate, I wanted to highlight three specific accomplishments of the ministry. The first is around the work that we’re doing to keep B.C. Hydro rates affordable for people and businesses. We’ve kept rate increases below inflation for six years in a row, and rates are currently 12 percent lower than they would have been under the former government’s ten-year rates plan.
We asked B.C. Hydro to crunch the numbers. That means that we’ve saved people and small businesses and industry here in the province a total of $1.725 billion on their hydro bills since 2017. This is really good news at a time when global inflation is driving up so many costs. It’s good to know that we are doing everything we can to keep the rates as low as possible.
Second is the work that we’re doing to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles. When we brought in the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act in 2019, critics told us that it couldn’t be done and that these targets were too ambitious. But year after year, we’ve exceeded every single target that we’ve set. And EVs represent currently almost one in every four new cars that are sold today. That’s the highest sales rate in Canada.
Economically, as well, the EV sector is growing. Compared to 2015, the total economic output of the EV sector has increased 142 percent, and it’s now $2.9 billion.
Jobs have increased by 120 percent from 7,000 to 15,000, and the total number of electric vehicle businesses is up by 94 percent from 198 to 384. Clearly, that’s an indication that this is part of our clean economy of the future.
The third accomplishment is the work that we’re doing to support the mining sector. In the past year, Ascot’s Premier mine has had its first pour — in fact, just a few days ago. A major new mine operating called Artemis Blackwater received its mines permit. It will be operational this summer. And Osisko’s Cariboo Gold received its environmental assessment certificate.
Since 2017, when we took office, we’ve seen a doubling of mineral exploration expenditures here in the province. That’s investment that’s coming here into B.C. to support companies and resources right at home. We’ve succeeded in reducing the permit backlog by 52 percent, including investments, in Budget 2024, that will further that success. I’m sure that we’ll get into all these things and much, much more.
With that, I will end my opening remarks and look forward to the questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
Member for Kootenay East, would you like to make any opening remarks?
T. Shypitka: Sure. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the minister for her opening comments. I’d like to echo her appreciation for her staff. I know the staff work hard.
I see a younger version of Les MacLaren sitting over there. Johnny Strilaeff from CBT wanted me to say that and put it on the record that he’s looking youthful with that soup strainer gone.
I will definitely address some of those key points that the minister made. Keeping B.C. Hydro rates low, absolutely. We’re going to go into that a little bit, maybe later today or on Monday. We’ll have to see how those regulatory accounts were affected to keep those rates low, and some other issues.
Zero-emission vehicle targets and the EV sector growing, of course. I mean, anyone looking at the price of gas today will probably be more incentivized to get an electric vehicle. We’ll be going into gas prices as well.
Then, of course, the mining sector is something near and dear to my heart. I think how I’d like to start is to do some testimonials. My office gets overflooded sometimes by folks that are concerned about the mining industry, where it’s going and the permitting process and some of the slowdowns in the industry, to be quite honest, that they’re facing.
I’ll first read a letter from a person that is in the jade industry. I think the minister will know where this is going. I’ll just read it. It came to me. Now, whether or not this is all factual, and the minister can probably comment on it, I thought it was worth reading into the record.
“Over the last 35 years, I’ve worked long and hard in northern B.C. establishing a solid reputation as a jade miner. Some refer to me as a pioneer of the B.C. jade industry, but I did not do it alone. I worked with a great team. I made lots of friends and business partners along the way, many of them Indigenous people. I’m very proud to have helped build a global market for B.C. jade, bringing millions of dollars each year into the northern B.C. economy. I thought British Columbia was a great place to build my business and raise a family.
“My life changed on July 4, 2019, when the president of the Tahltan Central Government arrived at our site in a helicopter and handed me an eviction notice. He did not care that I had operated in the area for over 30 years, had an excellent safety and environmental record, was fully permitted and current on all mineral taxes. I had never met” — I won’t mention the name — “the person from the Tahltan, but I was told secondhand that he was concerned about the jade industry because of a show he had seen on TV, called Jade Fever. My business was not the one on that show. My practices were not the same as theirs.
“The eviction notice had no legal force, but the NDP government decided it would accommodate the Tahltan president’s demands and used its power to stop our jade company, and others, from operating. The suspension lasted 24 months to start; then it was extended another 22 months. In that time, I lost my business, lost my global customers and lost my faith in B.C. I was never given a specific reason why we were forced to stop work. Two independent reports, at the request of the B.C. government, gave glowing reviews of our reclamation work and practices.
“The inexplicable shutdown did not only affect our 30-person team, who lost their livelihoods; it forced hardship on B.C. jade exporters, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and the community within our mining area. I do not know what the future holds for us here, if anything. I’ve had to hire lawyers, and I’m starting a lawsuit. Never in a million years did I think this could happen, and now I’m considering going to Afghanistan to develop jade deposits there. While I am worried about my safety, it’s clear I have more ability to earn a living there than in B.C. right now.
“Reconciliation with Indigenous groups is a great principle. I fully support it and will do my part, but it cannot be achieved through unjust actions that deprive people of their life’s work. I’m sharing my story in the hope that others will share theirs. I believe there are many like me, from small family businesses to large corporations, that are afraid to speak, but they need to, because if this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.”
This is just a letter I’m putting on the record. I hear many similar stories. The minister can comment. I guess the first place I’ll go with it: does the minister acknowledge the moratorium placed, in northern British Columbia, on jade mining? If so, what efforts have the ministry done to resolve this? After now almost five years, this July 4, when can we see some end in sight and give some clarity to jade mining in northern British Columbia?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member from Kootenay East for the question.
I wanted to start by acknowledging that yes, there is a moratorium or a pause on jade mining at this time. In part, that’s because our government is committed to environmental protection, to fostering a well-regulated and safe mining industry that’s done in partnership with First Nations and with industry.
We know that the mining sector is rich in opportunities for all British Columbians. I want to acknowledge that when a pause like this takes place — to do some of the difficult work, the work that we have to do collaboratively with industry and First Nations — it does have impacts.
Although I can’t speak specifically to matters that are before the court, so I’ll just make it clear right now that I’m not able to do that, I certainly can speak to what’s taken place since the moratorium has been in place. That is the work that our government is doing with the Tāłtān Central Government, with the Kaska Dena and with industry to address concerns around the environmental, economic and cultural concerns about jade mining. The member referenced the television show. For anybody who has seen the television show, it certainly, I think, highlights some of the concerns that people have felt about industry and why it’s so important to work collaboratively to reach a solution.
Placer jade mining permitting decisions in northern B.C. have been deferred until May 11 of this year, as the member, I’m sure, knows. That has allowed us the time to work through recommendations for the sector with the Tahltan and with the Kaska Dena. This is work that is focused on alleviating concerns that jade miners have with the pause and putting forward solutions that benefit everybody.
While operators can continue their work until the end of their permits, the permits aren’t being changed during this deferral period. So this work is ongoing. There will be more to say soon. We’ve had excellent engagement with several of the jade operators, and I’m grateful to them for that in the past several months. As the member knows, we’re coming up on the end of that period, and government will have more to say.
T. Shypitka: A couple things the minister said there. Yes, it is on pause.
I’ll ask, maybe, the first question. The minister said we’re coming to the end of that period. I’m not too sure what period she’s talking about. Maybe she can explain the period she’s talking about, because, first of all, it was a 24-month period. Then it was extended for another 22-month period. Now we’re past the 22-month period. Now we’re going into a third period, I guess. I’d like to find some timelines, some definitions.
The minister said “soon.” We’re going to find out soon. Once again, not definable on any actual timeline of what soon actually means. Work is ongoing. I could certainly agree with that, to some degree, because it’s been ongoing for five years now, almost.
The answers the minister gave don’t support the people that are concerned. The minister stated the obvious: that this is ongoing. We get it. But there’s a shelf life to mining projects in this province. As the person who wrote this letter indicated, he’s lost his business. He’s lost his livelihood. He’s lost a lot of faith, too, in the province, and he’s not alone. The minister is going to have to maybe tighten up slightly on giving some definite timelines, because “ongoing” could last a long time.
She also said that the jade mining show highlighted the issues that people are concerned about. I’m certainly hoping that the minister isn’t relying on a sensationalized TV show as an accurate depictions of how mining practices are happening in the province. There are many shows out there. There’s the Coquihalla show. I can’t remember — Highway Thru Hell, or something like that. I’m not sure exactly what the name of the show is, but it depicts the Coquihalla in the wintertime. A little sensationalized. I’ve driven that highway many times, and it’s not what it appears.
I think the minister knows that these shows are intended to sensationalize things. I’m certainly hoping she’s not saying that the highlighting is real to what she’s trying to accomplish here.
Question to the minister. Can she…? I guess we’re running out of time here. I only got to my second question. Can the minister explain herself on how much weight went into the jade mining show as a concern? What is she doing in actual boots on the ground on what impact on jade mining has in that area?
The Chair: Minister, do you want to answer this when we come back from break, or is it a quick response?
Hon. J. Osborne: I can give a quick response.
The Chair: Okay. Then we’ll have you move a motion following your answer, please.
Hon. J. Osborne: Thanks very much, Chair.
First of all, to be clear about the period, as I mentioned in my comments, the pause…. Let me get the wording exactly right. Placer jade permitting decisions in northern B.C. are deferred until May 11, 2024. That is the period to which I refer.
I was the member who raised the television show that depicts aspects of the jade industry that, as I mentioned, some people are concerned about. But those are concerns that have been brought forward by the Tahltan and Kaska Dena that have been the subject of extensive engagement with industry and with the Tahltan and the Kaska Dena.
That’s really important — to hear directly from industry, to hear directly from the nations about that.
But the ministry has captured satellite imagery of mining disturbance in the northwest to better understand the mining disturbance, and that is informing the future reclamation work and part of the technical information that is informing the conversations that are ongoing.
The Chair: Minister, could you please move the motion.
Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.