Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 430
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2024
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.
Introductions by Members
S. Chandra Herbert: We all know how important democracy is here in the Legislature and, indeed, in our communities across British Columbia. We also know the importance of engaging our young people. The ideas that they bring to our democracy are so vital, and their role in the future is so vital. So we should treat them as the leaders that they are today.
It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the House, the Speaker, our Assistant Deputy Speaker and, indeed, every member, to congratulate and celebrate and welcome the winners of the Democracy and Me art contest hosted by the Speaker.
In the category of kindergarten-to-grade-4, the winner is Chloe Chiang. She is here along with her…. There she is.
Well done.
We’re going to do that applause for each winner, now that we’ve done that for the first one.
She is here with Jackson Chiang and Jessie Wang, family members. Of course, it takes a family. Well done.
In the grades-5-to-8 category, we have Joyce Lee. She is here along with Alice Lee, Bryan Lee and Jeffrey Lee.
Then in the grades-9-to-12 category, we have Jayla Boudewyn. She is here with Jennifer Boudewyn.
Thank you for the ceremony this morning, hon. Speaker.
I look forward to joining the winners, with the Assistant Deputy Speaker, for lunch, where I’m sure they will educate us even more about how we can build a better future for them and kids their age.
Well done. Thank you for caring about our democracy. [Applause.]
K. Chen: Among all the Democracy and Me art contest winners, I want to give a special shout-out to the youngest winner, Chloe Chiang, and also welcome her family — her dad, my godfather, Jackson Chiang; and Chloe’s mom, Jessie Wang — to the House. They are my chosen family and close friends who I met before Chloe was even born, of course, shortly after my arrival in Canada.
I’m such a proud auntie of Chloe, whose artwork has been recognized in many competitions and now by the B.C. Legislature. Chloe is a brilliant young artist. You can see her artwork behind me and some more of her artwork through her itty bitty mini (m)art Instagram profile @cclulu77.
I’m also really glad that the family will be having lunch with my other chosen family, my adopted dad, the hon. Speaker, today.
I ask the House to please make Chloe and her family very, very welcome.
K. Kirkpatrick: I would like the House to welcome two amazing women, who are strong advocates for women’s rights, from the Restitution Project. They are here today to meet with and talk to our caucus about the important work that they’re doing.
Susan MacRae and Sherri Thomson, welcome to the House today.
H. Yao: Hon. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank you, again, for hosting the award winners of our Democracy and Me art competition.
On behalf of Richmond South Centre, I also want to echo my Richmond North Centre colleague, Richmond-Steveston colleague and Richmond-Queensborough colleague. All four of us want to come together and congratulate Joyce Lee, our winner, from Richmond, for the grade-5-to-grade-8 category.
Joyce Lee, you make all of us proud. We want to welcome you and your family to our Legislature.
Please join us and welcome together.
B. Banman: I have four guests that are here with me today. I’d like to introduce Roy Taylor, Andrew Firth, Raymond Price and Rod Robertson, who are part of the great blue wave that’s coming across this country.
Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
Hon. G. Lore: I have a guest in the gallery today, Eureka Gabbo, who I met through a poli-sci class at UBC but who is a first-year psychology student at UBC and who I’ve had a chance to connect with a number of times now. She’s a keen volunteer, works with kids and youth, really committed to community, really committed to learning. I’m grateful for the chance to be connected with her and to have her join today. I’m hoping the House can make her feel very welcome.
I also saw in the gallery Karen Aitken, who many folks here know, of course, from parliamentary education and outreach. Of course, Karen set me up on a blind date about 16 years ago, so a special place in my heart for Karen.
I’d also like to make her feel very welcome.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Today we have some special guests here from the Ministry of Housing: individuals who work within the deputy minister’s office. We have Lisa Shepherd, Laura Sampson, Cassandra Finlay, Kiran Kaur and Braedon Poulsen.
Also, two co-op students in the gallery today who are working alongside our ministry staff. We’ve got Haeden Walker and Nick Caul.
I’m hoping the House can please make them all very welcome.
Statements
EMERGENCY ALERT TEST
Hon. B. Ma: It is that time of year again, when we welcome something very special to this House and across British Columbia. I said “something” because it is not a person. But an emergency alert test will be issued tomorrow morning at 10:55 a.m. I just want to give people a heads-up that you will be receiving an alert on your mobile devices.
In order to receive that alert, you must be connected to an LTE or 5G network, not be on do not disturb or airplane mode and have up-to-date software.
And no, it is not possible to opt out of the service.
Tributes
KIM NOVAK
Hon. H. Bains: Over this past weekend, workers in this province lost a great leader, a committed advocate, and British Columbia lost a remarkable human being. Kim Novak, the president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1518, passed away this weekend.
Kim was a friend to many, a powerful voice to workers in this province. She devoted herself to improving the standards of living for workers — not only her members, but all workers. Elected unopposed to lead UFCW in 2019, she had recently been elected to a second term.
Kim was tireless in her dedication to the labour movement. She believed very strongly in the power of collective bargaining and solidarity among all workers.
She was a leader in the truest sense of the word. She was the first woman and youngest leader in the history of her local. She also served as vice-president of UFCW International and on the UFCW Canada national council. Her service to tens of thousands of UFCW members is inspirational, not only to her members, but to all of us.
Kim’s family has reminded us how to honour her legacy: “Do something today to embody how Kimberly lived. Be kind. Make someone laugh. Lend a hand.”
She will be missed, Mr. Speaker. You know, yourself and many in this House had personal experiences with her, dealings with her. She was so warm and welcoming. She never forgot what her role was in this society to improve the workers’ lives and never stopped working on behalf of those workers.
On behalf of all members of this House, I want to offer my sympathies to Kim’s family, her friends, to UFCW Local 1518 and all those touched by Kim’s life. She will be missed.
I hope members will join me in honouring the life and service of Kim Novak.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M218 — BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2024.
J. Sturdy: I move that a bill intituled British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2024, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
This is a fourth, and I suppose, the last time I will propose this amendment as an initial step to creating regional transit to connect communities of Mount Currie, Pemberton, Whistler, Squamish, Britannia together and, ultimately, with TransLink in Metro Vancouver.
We’ve known for many years now that the Sea to Sky region is growing rapidly. The last census numbers confirmed these are the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia, with growth rates of 18 percent in Whistler, 22 percent in Squamish and an astounding 34 percent in Pemberton, as evidenced by the Sea to Sky Highway, with its limited capacity, getting busier and busier.
B.C. Transit, local government and the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and Líl̓wat Nations also recognize it, and it’s time for this government to recognize it as well. Through the 25-year Sea to Sky transit future plan, the region has been, with one voice, advocating for a regional transit service. It’s really the low-hanging fruit that can help to meet the demand created by Greyhound’s abandonment of the region and further fueled by rapid growth in population and recreation.
The first step in the creation of this service is straightforward. Currently only local government elected officials are eligible to sit on a Sea to Sky Transit Commission. This bill rectifies this issue by amending the B.C. Transit Act to allow elected representatives of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and the Líl̓wat Nations to also serve on the commission. This supports the memorandum of understanding between the parties, which speaks to governance, growth, a funding model and reconciliation.
Last summer I was optimistic that the government was finally listening and planning to act in the interests of efficiency, connectivity, environment and support for growing communities in the Sea to Sky corridor. However, so far I’ve been disappointed.
There’s no question that this lack of transit services hurts kids, families, businesses and people and drives people to their cars and to put out their thumbs as the only option. It’s time for government to have the backs of these communities with their innovative ideas that support the needed transit and accessibility expansions. Connecting communities is just too important to ignore.
I move first reading of the bill.
The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
J. Sturdy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
M218, British Columbia Transit 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)
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY MONITORING
J. Sturdy: During Emergency Preparedness Week, with earthquakes, wildfires, tsunamis, floods, debris flows, avalanches and heat domes being risks and realities that we, as a province, actively plan for, there is another threat that may seem remote and out of mind. But in some parts of the province, we must be anticipating it.
Not to overstate it, but between the stratovolcanoes of Mount Garibaldi in Squamish and Mount Meager in the upper Pemberton Valley is the Mount Cayley volcanic field, which stretches from the Pemberton icecap to the Squamish River.
A volcanic eruption in this region may seem way down the list of things to worry about, but it’s not as remote a risk as one may think. Some of us remember another famous stratovolcano, Mount St. Helens, which killed 57 people and destroyed 200 homes and nearly 300 kilometres of highway. Ever since, the United States Geological Survey has taken that lesson to heart and maintains a rigorous monitoring program of their Cascadia volcanoes.
Mount Meager’s last eruption generated ash which could be found far out into the Prairies. Imagine what a similar eruption today would mean to the communities in the Sea to Sky and the Lower Mainland. It’s a perfectly plausible scenario.
Academics are always interested and active when money becomes available. Energy companies are interested in exploring for geothermal opportunities, while heli-skiers regularly fly the area. But in reality, there is no targeted monitoring done on any of B.C.’s volcanoes, and there are 30 of them.
The forces that produce these volcanoes are still active, and an event in the Sea to Sky would be life-altering for the people of British Columbia. We can’t stop volcanic activity, but we can prepare for it.
Let’s equip B.C. volcanologists and geologists with the tools and the funding they need to implement active monitoring of volcanoes in our province, in an attempt to keep our communities prepared.
NURSING WEEK
AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF
NURSES
S. Chant: I am grateful to acknowledge that I am speaking on the traditional territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, specifically the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations. I extend my thanks to them for the opportunity to live and work on this land.
Furthermore, I am privileged to live, work and learn on the unceded territories of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations within my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour.
As we embark on National Nursing Week 2024, which is themed “Changing lives, shaping tomorrow,” it’s imperative to recognize the profound impact nurses have on individuals, communities and the future of health care. This week, from May 6 to May 12, serves as a tribute to their dedication, resilience and unwavering commitment to excellence.
Nurses are the backbone of our health care system, tirelessly working to improve patient outcomes, advocate for those in need and pioneer innovations that shape the future of health care delivery. Their compassion, expertise and advocacy brings about transformative changes in the lives of patients and their families.
The theme “changing lives” underscores the profound impact nurses have on patient care and advocacy. Through their unwavering dedication, they bring about positive changes in health outcomes and ensure that every individual receives the care and support that they deserve. Moreover, their advocacy efforts drive systemic changes that benefit entire communities.
“Shaping tomorrow” highlights nurses’ roles as pioneers of innovation and educators who shape the next generation of health care professionals. Their commitment to lifelong learning and advancement drives advancements in treatment, technologies and patient care practice, ensuring a brighter and healthier future for all.
As we celebrate National Nursing Week, let us express our gratitude and admiration for the invaluable contribution of nurses. Let us stand in solidarity with them, advocating for improved working conditions, resources and recognition for their indispensable role in promoting health and wellness in our society.
Together let us champion nursing excellence and create a healthier, more equitable future for all.
QUESNEL RIVER RUSH
JUNIOR HOCKEY
TEAM
C. Oakes: I am thrilled to announce that Quesnel is the proud home of a new Junior A hockey team in the Kootenay International Junior Hockey League, the Quesnel River Rush.
The Quesnel River Rush will provide a platform for young athletes to showcase their talents, foster their development and perhaps pave the way for bigger leagues and brighter educational futures. Having a team of this calibre in our city will surely drive our numbers in youth hockey upwards, melding into the trickle effect of improved mental health and structured team dynamics.
We fondly recall their predecessors, the Quesnel Millionaires, whose legacy on the ice from 1975 to 2011 paved the way for our young hockey dreamers. Their spirit remains a beacon of inspiration, reminding us of the passion that hockey fosters for our locals.
The team is owned by longtime hockey parent, coach and hockey fan Tracy Mero, and the coach and GM will be Dale Hladun. We’re also extremely proud of the partnership with the Lhtako Dene Nation, where the team has big plans to work closely together to collectively focus on youth in sports and community relations.
The introduction of our new team is not just a win for hockey fans and future stars but a victory for the entire community of Quesnel. The River Rush games will serve as a rallying point for our community, a place where families and friends can gather together to cheer, celebrate and share the love of the game, just as they have in previous seasons and will continue to do for our beloved seniors’ men’s team, the Quesnel Kangaroos.
As we look forward to the first season this September, which we are doing so excitedly, we know that in Quesnel, hockey is not just a game; it’s a vital part of the city’s identity. We are beyond thrilled to call it home to a team of this calibre.
BOB McMINN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
WORK IN HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY
R. Parmar: May 10 is going to be a special day, a day to celebrate a monumental milestone, the 100th birthday of Bob McMinn, affectionately known to me and so many others as Mr. Highlands.
For those who don’t know Bob, it’s clear why he has earned such a revered title. His century of life has been marked by unwavering dedication to community service, environmental stewardship, philanthropy and his commitment to building a strong community spirit here in the Highlands.
I don’t get a chance to spend much time talking about the Highlands in this place, and I can’t do justice in two minutes to recognize all that my friend Bob has accomplished in his life, but I’m going to do my best to try.
Bob has called the Highlands home since 1953, when he and his late wife, Nancy, first settled there. Bob has profound dedication to our community, and it began very early. With a doctorate in ecology from UBC, he worked as a researcher in forest ecology, both in the Kootenays and the white spruce forests of the Prince George forest district. Yet his heart remained here in the forested areas just north of Victoria, where one can still, even today, get lost in the beauty of the woods.
Bob was the first mayor the Highlands ever had when it incorporated as a municipality. One of his most notable contributions has been his tireless work with the Mary Lake Sanctuary, recently renamed the W̱MÍYEŦEN Nature Sanctuary, a 42-acre protected forest and riparian area that supports biodiversity while preserving ecosystems and wild habitat.
Bob, from an early age, understood the value of bringing community together, and that’s what many people will remember in his time as mayor.
His efforts have been instrumental in preserving natural habitats. He has dedicated much of his worth, blood, sweat and tears to saving the sanctuary from development. He founded the Highlands District Community Association and was the driving force for so many local initiatives.
I could go on and on, but as we celebrate Bob’s 100th birthday, let us reflect on the profound impact he has had on the Highlands, celebrating not just the century he has lived but the countless contributions he has made to enrich the lives of so many.
RODEO ACTIVITIES AND
COWBOY HALL OF FAME
INDUCTEES
L. Doerkson: We’ve had an amazing start to the rodeo season in Cariboo-Chilcotin. We had incredible high school rodeo action two weekends ago and a spectacular classic indoor rodeo the weekend before.
Hats off to the Call family, to the volunteers and the sponsors of the indoor rodeo and, of course, all of those who came as spectators to enjoy our amazing western heritage.
It was an absolute honour to introduce, at the Spring Classic, all of the 2024 inductees to the B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame, and what a group of inductees they were. The B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame, working with the Museum of Cariboo Chilcotin, preserves and honours the history of pioneers in British Columbia. These men and women have left a legacy of perseverance and hard work, and instilled a lifestyle in generations that have followed them.
I’m honoured to introduce them today: Earl Buck, pioneer; Ken “Stoney” Waterston, competitor; Wanda Dorsey, pioneer; Isidore Kalelest, family; Wilfred Anderson, working cowboy; Ollie Curtis, a competitor; Bill Sure, builder of western culture; and, of course, the historic Rose Ranch, which is our Century Ranch that’s here.
The incredible stories of these pioneers are the foundations on which many a young person has learned the lifestyle and the love of the land. I encourage you to look up B.C. Cowboy Hall of Fame and find out more about the fascinating lives of these early pioneers, the challenges they’ve overcome and the joy that they have found in their lives, which will forever be a part of our lives.
It is an amazing time to celebrate our western heritage. I can’t wait to attend the Clinton May Ball, rodeos like Interlakes, Esk’et, Anahim, Redstone.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we’ll see you at the world-famous Williams Lake Stampede.
A hearty congratulations to all of the Cowboy Hall of Fame inductees for 2024.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
B. Anderson: British Columbia is an incredible place, drawing people from all over the world, but due to global inflation and expensive housing prices, the cost of living in B.C. is high. Speaking with youth in B.C., they are worried about finding a place to live that they can afford and wonder if they will ever be able to buy a home.
That is why our government is taking action to address affordability. Before 2017, predatory housing practices were widespread, which drove up housing prices dramatically.
Speaking with a young person who is eager to work the election, I asked him what actions our government is taking that give him hope. He said he is glad to see that our B.C. NDP government has been cracking down on the practices such as speculation and flipping. He is grateful that we are building over 100,000 homes and 8,000 new on-campus student beds, and that by limiting short-term rentals there are more places for people like him to live.
As a renter, he is grateful that last year we introduced the B.C. renters tax credit, putting $400 back into the pockets of renters. He is hopeful, because we’ve cut costs for first-time buyers by expanding our first-time homebuyers program. He is also deeply committed to climate action and is hopeful because our government is committed to climate action too. But he wants to see even more.
Many young people don’t remember living under repressive right-wing governments.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member. Member.
B. Anderson: I remember when climate scientists were silenced…
The Speaker: Member. Member.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
B. Anderson: …thousands of government workers were laid off, and years of inaction on housing and health care mean that we are behind.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member.
B. Anderson: I am grateful to be a part of government that is taking action for people, ensuring a….
The Speaker: Please turn her phone off.
Just a reminder to all members. Two-minute statements are absolutely supposed to be non-partisan.
Oral Questions
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AND CARBON TAX
POLICY
R. Merrifield: Well, 18 months ago the Premier promised tangible results. Instead, he has failed on every front. His legalization of open drug use has unleashed chaos. Meanwhile, six lives a day are still lost.
At the same time, life has never been more expensive as he triples the carbon tax. This, despite the latest report revealing that B.C.’s carbon emissions are going up. In fact, the NDP record is the worst in Canada.
While British Columbians struggle to pay for gas and groceries, why is this Premier jacking up the carbon tax to 38 cents a litre and utterly failing to reduce emissions?
Hon. G. Heyman: We continue to have confidence in our CleanBC roadmap, and it continues to show results. The emissions inventory changes because the federal government doesn’t have accurate data on methane emissions to establish a baseline many years back.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. G. Heyman: They admit this in their report, which I wish the member had read fully. The report is really clear, and I’ll quote from the report: “Despite these technical estimation issues, the oil and gas industry in B.C. has consistently been shown to have one of the lowest emission intensities, emissions per unit of production in Canada and internationally. This is supported by the recent atmospheric measurements. The 2024 national inventory shows a more than 50 percent reduction in methane emissions intensity between 2012 and 2022.”
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
R. Merrifield: Results? The results are that this NDP government holds the worst emissions record in Canada, with emissions rising from 61.9 megatonnes in 2016 to 64.3 megatonnes in last week’s report. While emissions in nearly every other province…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
R. Merrifield: …have declined during that period, under this NDP government emissions are on the rise. The Premier promised results but has delivered only increasing emissions and higher costs for gas, groceries and heating.
With families struggling to afford essentials…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
R. Merrifield: …why won’t the Premier adopt B.C. United’s plan to give people a break at the pump immediately and exempt the carbon tax on home heating?
Hon. G. Heyman: British Columbians have a really good chance to evaluate our plan because we report annually through a climate change accountability report. Perhaps British Columbians could actually judge the opposition plan if they had one, but they don’t, and neither does the Conservative Party.
I wish the member opposite had read the full report, had read the full commentary of the federal government on the report, because the report is very clear.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh. Members, Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: The report acknowledges that their ability….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Member, let the minister complete his answer, please.
Hon. G. Heyman: The report acknowledges that the federal government, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s ability to accurately establish a baseline that they used for calculating emission reductions is flawed. B.C. has the leading methane emission measurement methodology in Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada has been clear. They want to work with us, and I’ll quote once more: “The expected upward revisions of pre-2020 emissions in next year’s report would result in a larger reduction in intensity since 2012.”
The federal government is clear. They know they have a problem. They know we’ve got it right. They’re going to work with us so they get it right too.
P. Milobar: It’s always remarkable with this government. They asked the federal government for decrim. It failed spectacularly. Now it’s the federal government’s fault for people using drugs on the streets.
They asked the federal government to measure our emissions, and it comes back that they’re failing. In fact, our emissions in B.C. are higher and going up compared to every other province in the country, and suddenly it’s the federal government’s fault once again. It would be wonderful if this government ever took responsibility for their failed actions.
This government is simply incompetent at fighting climate change, just as incompetent as they are on the affordability crisis. Perhaps if they hadn’t funnelled carbon tax dollars into their carbon tax kickback, they might actually have recorded some emission drops.
Grocery prices have soared over 30 percent under this Premier’s watch, and the Premier is hiking the carbon tax up to 38 cents a litre while emissions continue to rise. The NDP’s cost B.C. scheme has simply failed.
Why won’t the Premier adopt B.C. United’s plan, remove the carbon tax on home heating and give people an actual break at the pump for once?
Hon. G. Heyman: I want to be really clear, because the federal government has been really clear. Their methodology is flawed. They acknowledge it. They promise that next year they’ll work with us so that it is better. They say in their report, very clearly, that the result will show that this year’s figures are not accurate…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: …and next year’s figures will reflect the emissions that we’ve been experiencing in British Columbia steadily since 2018 — 5 percent since 2018.
The opposition, however, has no plan. The opposition thinks we should get rid of the single most effective measurement we’ve had to reduce emissions in British Columbia. They brought in the carbon tax. They watched the Conservatives turn their back on their carbon tax. They now are copycatting the Conservatives.
But they can’t hide from their record. They said, when they were in power, that they were proud of the carbon tax. It was effective. The now leader said: “If you want people to change behaviour, you put a cost to it, and you ask them to consider shifting their behaviour.”
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: We’ve continued that. We continue to support British Columbians with a range of measures to support affordability, including 100 percent of the carbon tax increase going to the low- and middle-income tax credits.
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
P. Milobar: I think our emissions are rising just based on the government’s lack of answers as we speak. Here are some facts that the minister doesn’t like to acknowledge. Carbon tax was capped at $30 a tonne. It was revenue-neutral, and emissions were actually going down under our government. It’s no longer revenue-neutral. It’s going up to $170 a tonne or 38 cents a litre, and emissions are actually going up under this Premier.
The minister can keep burying his head in the sand, but the Cost B.C. scheme is a clear failure, with the highest increase of emissions in the country. Everything is more expensive, and the Premier is still determined to hike to 38 cents a litre at the pump with his carbon tax, even though emissions are rising.
The minister might want to talk about our position or the Conservative position. Let’s look at the federal NDP position. The leader, Jagmeet Singh, and other NDP leaders, like the Premier in Manitoba, Wab Kinew, both abandoned the carbon tax. In fact, even the NDP leader in Saskatchewan said a few days ago: “The consumer carbon tax is simply not on for us, and the carve-out around heating fuel was unfair.”
With the Premier completely isolated compared to the rest of the country, why does he continue to push a failed policy instead of adopting CleanBC’s plan to remove the carbon tax on home heating and provide real relief by removing the taxes at the pump as well?
Hon. G. Heyman: We’re proud of the CleanBC plan because it’s working, and everyone in Canada knows that it’s working. Years ago, prior to the Conservative Party taking statements and positions against the carbon tax, the leader of B.C. United said: “I think cancelling the carbon tax…. My personal opinion is that that would be a terrible mistake.” He said that because he was proud of it, and it showed initial results. It showed initial results right up to the point when former leader….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh. Members, Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: It showed initial results right up to the point when former leader of the B.C. Liberals, Christy Clark, turned her back on climate action, along with the entire B.C. Liberal caucus.
In 2018, we brought in a solid plan. We started implementing the plan, and it’s having results.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Heyman: A 5 percent reduction by 2018, and we have a range of supports for affordability for British Columbians that they had not seen in 16 years of B.C. Liberal government.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Members, as a courtesy, when a question is asked, let’s be quiet and listen carefully. When the answer is provided, let’s provide the same courtesy to the other side.
House Leader of the Third Party.
EDUCATION FUNDING
A. Olsen: Teacher shortages across B.C. have forced schools to rely on uncertified teachers. The number of uncertified teachers in the province has tripled over the last four years. Portables have become a permanent fixture in many schools across the province. Twenty thousand teachers and 7,000 teachers assistants will be needed over the next ten years to keep up with growing enrolment.
The B.C. Teachers Federation has called on the government to create a comprehensive plan — remarkable that they don’t already have one — to address the growing teacher shortage. Loan forgiveness and incentives for rural workers could vastly improve the outcomes for teachers, students and the education system in British Columbia.
It’s a desperate situation in our public education system, a public education system the people on the other side claimed to support at one point. This government used to be that champion. We fail to see it while they’ve been in government.
To the Minister of Education, what is the minister doing to ensure that we have a thriving public education system in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Singh: Thank you, Member, for this question.
We know B.C. is not the only province that is dealing with labour challenges, and the education sector is also one of them. We are, in the ministry but also in talking to all of our education partners, very cognizant of the need to hire more teachers. That’s the reason that we have added more teacher-training seats since we formed the government, more than 300 new teacher-training seats, giving incentives to teachers to take on this profession but also having some very special recourse to hire rural and Indigenous teachers.
We have a very robust working group, which the B.C. Teachers Federation is also part of, working very closely with our education partners, looking at ways how we can support, how we can bring more teachers. And also the teachers who are already in the workforce — how to support them so that they are also able to mentor and train and have more teachers come into this really productive and really, I would say, very fruitful profession.
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
A. Olsen: B.C. is the only jurisdiction that we’re responsible for, and the students, our kids, in the public education system are the people that we should be looking out for. Unfortunately, I’ve watched over the last seven years a B.C. NDP government that claimed to be champions of our public education system allow it to erode under their watch.
We’re hosting a FIFA event here in a couple of years — $150 million. Think of what $150 million could do to offset the cost of inflation in our public education system, something that school districts across the province have been complaining about to this government and they’ve failed to meet.
The operational costs of our school districts are going up. This government has failed to meet those. We’ve seen libraries in our school systems close. This government has failed to meet those needs. We’ve seen tech departments fail to upgrade the tech that our students need to be successes. We’ve seen this government fail to meet those needs.
Look, they’ve made a commitment to FIFA that they’re going to be able to profit from this upcoming tournament. We need to see the same commitment to our kids and to our parents. This B.C. NDP government has barely maintained the status quo.
To the Minister of Education, why is the public education system eroding under this government?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. let’s hear the answer, please. Members, at the back side, please.
Hon. R. Singh: I don’t agree with the member’s statement. Since we formed the government, we have been championing public education. Unlike the previous government, we have made the investments like no other. Since 2017, we have invested not just in the capital projects — to date, more than $3 billion just in the capital projects — but also in the public education, whether it is the operating funding or whether it is hiring more teachers.
I just talked about the incentives that we are using for our rural and Indigenous communities. With those incentives, we were able to hire 50 new teachers just in the last year.
I completely understand the challenges — the recruitment challenges, the labour challenges. We are very cognizant of them.
B.C. is not the only jurisdiction that is dealing with it. It is a Canada-wide issue but also a global issue, the labour shortage that we are facing. But we are working with all of our education partners. I just want to reiterate again that we have invested in public education that the previous government, the old government, did not do.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM
AND RESPONSE TO
PROTESTS ON
UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES
B. Banman: Yesterday here in the Legislature of British Columbia, we marked the solemn day of Yom HaShoah, Holocaust remembrance day. This year Yom HaShoah feels especially important, as the conflict in the Middle East started by the barbaric Hamas terrorist attack on October 7.
It has spurred demonstrations here at home in British Columbia. The demonstrations at the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria are not innocent. They are marred with antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate. Some members of the NDP caucus have disputed this fact, which is unsurprising, considering the accusations of antisemitism in the office of this NDP Premier, throughout his caucus and in the New Democratic Party itself.
But it’s not too late. This Premier has the opportunity to demonstrate that he has changed his approach by being straight up with British Columbians and taking clear, decisive action.
My question is to the NDP Premier. Will this NDP Premier ask the University of British Columbia to remove the encampment at UBC, where antisemitic protesters are intimidating Jewish students, are intimidating Jewish staff, chanting genocidal slogans and spreading hate speech, or will he continue to allow antisemitism to continue to go unchecked under his watch here in British Columbia?
Hon. L. Beare: Our government has made our position very clear. University campuses have always been a place to freely debate ideas. But university campuses also have to be a safe place for all students, all staff, all faculty, especially Jewish students, staff and faculty, who are feeling particularly alone right now. We have made it clear that hate speech of any kind, including antisemitism, is not accepted on our campuses and is not accepted in our province.
With my ongoing conversations with faculty, with students and with the presidents of the universities, I remain confident that the universities have the ability and the tools and the policies in place to allow for a peaceful protest while also ensuring that students and staff are kept safe. Our universities are working closely with local law enforcement to ensure that the protests remain peaceful and that campuses remain a safe place for everyone.
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
B. Banman: The establishment of the so-called Palestinian solidarity encampment was attended by the pro-Hamas group Samidoun’s leader, Charlotte Kates, an American who has been charged with public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred. Charlotte Kates’s speech in support of Hamas in the vile terrorist attack which occurred on October 7 was called the most hateful thing he could imagine by no one else other than this NDP Premier. In her speech, Kates praises the unimaginable violence, rape, murder, torture and kidnapping of innocent Jewish people as heroic.
My question to the NDP Premier: the NDP Premier admits that Kates’s speech is hateful, but what does he intend to do about it? Are these more empty words, or has this Premier asked Ottawa to deregister Samidoun as a so-called non-profit, and has he asked to deport Charlotte Kates, who is, in fact, an American citizen?
Hon. L. Beare: The celebration of death, of sexual violence is abhorrent, and it is not tolerated on campuses. That individual was arrested.
Yesterday we all stood in this House and talked about and remembered the Holocaust and the events of October 7. We talked about “Never again” and how we need to continue to raise our voices and not be silent in the light of antisemitism. That’s why we have made our position very clear, that antisemitism is not tolerated on campuses. It is not tolerated in our province. Hate of any kind is not tolerated.
Our government is taking action. We believe that campuses remain a place to freely debate speech, while also remaining places for safety for students, faculty and staff — especially Jewish students. We’re going to continue to take action, whether it be introducing the Anti-Racism Act, whether it be enshrining Holocaust education in K to 12, whether it be providing funding for community groups and organizations who are experiencing hate. We will not tolerate antisemitism, and we will not tolerate hate in this province.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ANTISEMITISM
AND COMMENTS BY
MLA FOR RICHMOND-QUEENSBOROUGH
M. Lee: Yesterday, on a day of commemoration for Jews murdered in the Holocaust, the NDP member for Richmond-Queensborough made deeply offensive remarks. He tokenized Jews, and he called concerns about antisemitism on university campuses: “inflated and unfounded.” But he has faced no consequences.
A double standard, compared to the treatment of his former NDP colleague, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who was forced to resign by this Premier. When given the chance to show leadership and condemn these remarks, the Premier failed. Surely he’s had more time to consider the member’s remarks and the community’s reaction.
I’ll ask again, as I did yesterday: will the Premier condemn these hurtful remarks and mandate consequences for the member, or will he continue his double standard against Jewish people?
Hon. R. Kahlon: We have, many times, discussed in this House how we collectively have responsibility to push back against hate in any form. We have shared, in this House, the many actions that we’ve taken as a government since October 7. We understand that there’s pain and fear in communities. We understand that.
That’s why we’re taking the steps we’re taking. That’s why we provide additional funding for, especially, Jewish communities that want extra safety measures in place for their own communities. That’s why we’ve taken steps on anti-racism with the legislation that we have to address systemic racism.
Now, the members can discount how important that is. But I can tell you, as someone who has been….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Shhh. Members.
A question was asked. We all understand the gist of the question. Let the minister answer, please.
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is asking me who is discounting. The member who asked this question was discounting the Anti-Racism Act in his comments. I listened to his entire second read speech.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member.
Hon. R. Kahlon: He did. He was.
But I can tell you….
Interjection.
Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member from Prince George has a question, she should feel free to stand up and ask a question.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, Members.
Minister will continue.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Members will know that since 2017, we’ve been working on this issue. One of the first measures that we took on as a government was to bring back the Human Rights Commission, which was gotten rid of by a previous government. We knew how important that independent office was. We heard from racialized communities. We heard from the Jewish community. We heard from the First Nations community about how this office needed to be completely independent of government so they could truly be reflective of the needs of communities.
We have been committed to this since we formed government. We’re committed to this now. We’re going to continue to work with communities to address any issues that come forward so that everybody can feel safe in our communities.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.
M. Lee: If the House Leader for the government continues to stand up instead of the Premier in this House, to address my questions yesterday and today…. I would ask the member to withdraw his incorrect statement, which is that I did not have the opportunity to speak to Bill 23 on second reading. I certainly look forward to the debate on committee stage on that bill, but because of other bills that I was addressing in other chambers in this House….
I will say this: the government has no plan since October 7 to address antisemitism in the province. It’s escalating to a crisis level. The Premier and this entire government have been missing in action. The measures that this government purports to have said that they’ve done are only to really provide supports for security to a community that’s under attack. That’s it. The other initiatives, as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has pointed out, are initiatives that were underway for some years before October 7.
The Premier’s continued refusal to confront antisemitism in his party has consequences. For the first time in nearly a decade, the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver boycotted the annual Yom HaShoah commemoration at the Legislature yesterday amidst CSIS warnings about a spike in violent rhetoric from extremist actors. It’s alarming that campus protest organizers at the UBC encampment in the Premier’s own riding have been linked to terrorist groups like Hamas.
The Speaker: Question, Member.
M. Lee: But the NDP continues to promote fringe groups and tokenize Jews at the expense of Jewish students, faculty and staff who are scared for their safety.
The Speaker: Question, Member.
M. Lee: When will the Premier put the safety of Jewish students, faculty and staff ahead of NDP internal politics, protect those targeted by hate and address the antisemitism within his NDP cabinet, caucus and government?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I won’t take this time to share with the member his comments that he has made. I’ve got them here in front of me. But I will say that we know that there is fear within the Jewish community. We know that there are many that are scared. That’s why we continue to do the work we’re doing.
There requires a systemic change within society. That’s why the anti-racism bill is important. But that’s not the only thing. I’ve shared with this House on several occasions that the B.C. prosecution service updated their hate crime policy so that they could….
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member. Member, let’s be respectful, please, to each other.
Please continue.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I mentioned multiple times in this House the actions that we’re taking. This didn’t just start on October 7. The work here started when we first formed government to ensure that everyone felt safe in our communities, regardless of who they love, regardless of their religion. This is something that I hope all members in this House value and that we continue to work together to ensure that everybody in these communities, in our communities, in British Columbia, across the country feel safe in our communities.
T. Stone: Look, what the official opposition and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville are trying to get at here with this line of questioning today is quite straightforward. You have a community, the Jewish community, which feels that they’re under attack and, frankly, in many respects they are.
As we all heard at the Yom HaShoah commemoration yesterday in the Legislature, a very solemn date in the calendar to honour and remember six million victims of the Holocaust and to acknowledge and remember the thousands of Jews who were slaughtered on October 7, the language really matters. But so do the actions.
The line of questioning we have put to the Premier yesterday and today, which the Premier hasn’t addressed…. The House Leader can get up and talk about initiatives and actions and things that predated the October 7 massacre.
What we’ve been asking for this government to explain and for the Premier to categorically condemn are comments that continue to be made by members of his own caucus. The member for Richmond-Queensborough stood in this House yesterday morning, on the same day that Jews and the Jewish community were getting together in the Hall of Honour, and he made comments in reference to antisemitism on campuses. His exact words were that antisemitism on campuses is inflated and unfounded.
The Speaker: Question, Member.
T. Stone: So you could excuse the Jewish community and those of us that are trying to bring a voice to this in this place for not being willing to accept responses that talk about everything other than the words that have been uttered by members of the NDP caucus.
Once again on behalf of the Jewish community, on behalf of Jews who feel like they’re under attack and are, will the Premier today condemn the comments that were made in this chamber yesterday morning, the comments, from the member for Richmond-Queensborough, that antisemitism on campuses is inflated and unfounded? Will the Premier condemn those comments and demand that that member apologize to the Jewish community, and do it today?
The Speaker: Thank you all, Members, for being quiet and respectful as the question was asked. Let’s hope we finish the answer in the same manner.
Hon. N. Sharma: Yesterday we gathered with survivors and members of the Jewish community in the Hall of Honour to commemorate Yom HaShoah and the atrocities of the Holocaust. I heard from people — and we all did as a government — of the fear that they’re feeling about the rise of antisemitism in this province.
I want to make it clear that our government stands against antisemitism and the rise of it in this province, but it’s not just that. We know that we have to use every tool in our toolkit to combat the rise of hate in our province and the rise of antisemitism. We are doing that.
Whether it’s the systemic racism bill that’s before the House right now that will give us new tools that we’ve never had to train the public service, to make sure that systemic racism is addressed in all our public bodies….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. N. Sharma: Whether it’s funding directly communities across this province that are on the front lines of rising hate; whether it’s launching a racist incident help line, which is a new tool for people to be able to report hate and get the support that they need, meeting directly with communities…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. N. Sharma: …has led us to invest in the Jewish community for their safety and their security. We’ve also just recently passed legislation to help keep kids in schools safe from protests.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, Members.
Hon. N. Sharma: We also are investing in police training to respond to hate crimes.
Mr. Speaker, we understand that we need to use every tool in our toolkit to address hate in this province. We are doing that, and we will continue to do that. The Jewish community can know that we will continue that effort.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 24, Energy Statutes Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Interjection.
The Speaker: I did, Member. Please. Let’s not….
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member, do you want the Chair to recognize the other member, or do you want to continue cross…?
Interjection.
The Speaker: Yes, he will only ask for a point of order if he will be let to do it.
So other members, I request to be quiet when he’s asking, raising his point of order.
Point of Order
M. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask again that the Government House Leader withdraw his remark that I had spoken to, on second reading to Bill 23.
I do understand his comment, but that was on a different bill. I was not speaking on Bill 23 on second reading.
The Speaker: Thank you, Member. The Chair takes it under advisement.
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 24, Energy Statutes Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act.
In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 24 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT
ACT, 2024
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:07 a.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. L. Beare: It appears that we have a group from Keating Elementary. Is that the group up there?
Hello, everyone.
That is the riding of the member for Saanich North and the Islands, and he’s not in the House to introduce them right now. I wanted to say a quick hello to them and their teacher, Clark Lyster. We have 24 grade 5 and grade 3 students. I do want to let them know that the House isn’t always like this. Usually we’re much more friendly in our debate.
I hope you have a wonderful tour today.
The Chair: Welcome to the students.
We will take a short recess to allow the minister and her staff to get going on the clean energy bill that we are here to discuss for committee stage. Please retain your seats. I hope to get this underway as soon as we can.
Thank you, Members. We are in temporary recess.
The committee recessed from 11:08 a.m. to 11:10 a.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Debate Continued
The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee to order. We are here for committee stage of Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. We are currently on clause 1.
On clause 1 (continued).
S. Furstenau: I’m glad to have a chance to ask some questions. Just some general questions around electricity demand. Can the minister confirm that demand is expected to increase by 15 percent or more between now and 2030?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. And yes, that is correct. B.C. Hydro’s IRP forecasts a need for 15 percent more energy or electricity between now and 2030. That’s an IRP that was approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission.
S. Furstenau: Does that forecast include the currently proposed six LNG facilities being electrified?
Hon. J. Osborne: Although I’m not sure that the question is relevant to the bill, and clause 1 in particular here, my comment on this would be that the forecasting demand includes various estimates of industrial demand. With any project, whether it’s LNG or something else, that is permitted and under construction or about to go under construction, that load would specifically be included.
As we forecast out into future years, that’s where it’s important to take in estimates of demand that are in the interconnection queue or estimates of projects that may be in the interconnection queue in the future. Of course, this is why B.C. Hydro, too, is updating its integrated resource plan — and now, increasingly, on a much more regular basis — in order to correctly forecast the amount of energy that will be required in the future.
S. Furstenau: I think the case is relevant to the bill overall, because the bill is about limiting where electricity is going to be used and focuses on the cryptocurrency not being an appropriate place for energy in this province and gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council powers to determine these kinds of decisions. So my question is about the use of electricity.
In December 2022, the province issued a directive to the B.C. Utilities Commission suspending new electricity connections for cryptocurrency mining for 18 months. Twenty-one projects requesting a total of 11,700 gigawatt hours per year were temporarily suspended. That’s the equivalent of more than two Site Cs’ worth of annual energy. The calculations around all six LNG facilities, were they to be built and provided with energy, would require around 43 terawatt hours of electricity per year.
My question is: if the minister is putting this legislation in front of the House to determine what are appropriate uses for electricity in B.C. with growing demand, how does LNG fit into the equation around where B.C.’s electricity is going?
Hon. J. Osborne: I appreciate the question. I think this is relevant to clause 4, but we’re currently on clauses 1 to 3. I just ask the discretion of the Chair how to handle that.
The Chair: Of course, questions about other clauses are appropriate during those clauses. We are still on clause 1.
S. Furstenau: Generally in clause 1, we’re asking general questions about pieces of legislation. What is the overall strategy for the province to meet its electricity demands if those demands include six new LNG facilities?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for slightly reframing the question there.
Again, B.C. Hydro looks at a range of scenarios in their forecasting, and that includes scenarios with high levels of industrial demand. Now, it’s not specific to the LNG industry, but considering ports, mines, increasingly in the future looking at potential hydrogen projects and LNG.
The bill here, though…. We are dealing with a specific provision around implementing a permanent policy for cryptocurrency mining. Again, this is the result of the direction provided from the court when there was a judicial review of that decision that was taken and a suggestion that a permanent framework for this would need a legislative framework to support that. That is the focus of the bill.
S. Furstenau: I understand that the critic from the official opposition was talking about clauses 1, 2 and 3 in his questions yesterday, just generally asking some questions.
On the opportunities for First Nations to be contributing to clean energy projects, does the minister see a pathway for there to be smaller projects than the 40-megawatt hours which have been currently put on the table?
Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, this was a question that we canvassed yesterday.
First of all, again I’ll acknowledge that the call for power this spring with a 40-megawatt minimum does not enable a nation to undertake a smaller project, and we know that there are nations who wish to do so for various and good reasons.
The path forward there is through the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative and the work with the New Relationship Trust, in partnership with Pacific Can and B.C. Hydro, funding that will go towards supporting the development of those projects and, most importantly, making up the cost differential in the price of electricity so the project is sustainable and viable for a nation. The ratepayer does not bear the burden of a higher cost that’s needed to make that project more economical.
That’s one of our government’s ways of supporting the vision of First Nations in being participants in clean energy, in addition to many others, which I won’t go into right now.
S. Furstenau: The questions raised today during question period around the province’s emissions…. Of course, the Energy Ministry has a big role to play in this.
How does the minister see the approach that’s being taken in this legislation, repealing the standing offer program but creating these other pathways for smaller energy projects? How does she see this contributing to the overall emissions reductions goals, particularly given the addition of, potentially, six LNG projects?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again for the question. We’ve had the good fortune in British Columbia to be in a surplus of clean electricity production for some years, but we know that with behavioural changes, a growing population and the interest that industry has shown in clean electricity to decarbonize their operations, B.C. needs more electricity.
We’ve already spoken about the fact that we anticipate a need for 15 percent more clean electricity in the grid in the coming six years or so. This means the call for power is one avenue for adding new electricity into the system. Of course, Site C will come online later this year.
The B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative and the smaller projects that nations wish to participate in are a very small part of contributing to the electrification of society and the economy. But of course, they’re really important to those nations. Taken together, those project — decarbonizing remote communities, the call for power, Site C coming online — are all contributing to that electrification across society and the economy.
Also, though, I want to be sure that we understand that growing energy efficiency and demand-side management are an important part of this electrification as well. So while the economy is decarbonizing, adding new clean electricity sources puts us in a really good position to be able to power that future economy.
S. Furstenau: I know I keep coming back, but I think it’s really important for us to try to understand this. Should we go forward with, say, the six LNG projects that are currently proposed, how much of B.C.’s energy would go to those projects? What percentage of the electricity energy generated would go to those projects?
Hon. J. Osborne: I can speak only to the LNG projects that are permitted and passed FID and under construction, LNG Canada phase 1 and Woodfibre, which each draw about 150 megawatts. That’s an approximate figure.
I think what the member is driving at here is questions around the electricity load of a specific industry. Again, I want to come back to the fact that there are many industries in British Columbia that want clean electricity. Some of them are anticipated to have large loads, and it’s important that we have a framework to be able to make those decisions and to see how our economy can grow and encompass that growth with B.C.’s clean electricity.
That will be done through the climate-aligned energy framework. I think the member is familiar with my mandate letter. It’s something that is actively being worked on and we’ll be saying more about in the weeks and months to come. It will help us chart that path forward about how our emissions goals and CleanBC align with economic growth and the clean energy needs that our economy has as a whole.
S. Furstenau: I’m curious. This legislation gives power to the cabinet to regulate electricity going to cryptocurrency. Why not add the LNG industry to that to be able to give the powers to regulate that as well?
Hon. J. Osborne: As I explained, one of the reasons why the cryptocurrency portion of this legislation is coming forward really is in specific response to a judicial review of a decision that cabinet undertook to suspend the connections in the cryptocurrency mining industry.
As the member has already explained, the massive loads that were proposed to be used, in addition with the low employment and low benefits that provides to communities and understanding that we need to reserve B.C.’s clean electricity for things that match the values of British Columbians, was one of the reasons why we undertook the decision. That is the focus of this legislation today. The legislation does not contemplate other industries for those reasons.
Again, moving forward, it will be important to have a framework to make decisions and to understand the allocation of electricity and the changes we need to see as more industries, not just LNG but other industries that want to use B.C.’s clean electricity for their operations — how we make those decisions and how we are able to continue to drive down emissions by seeing increased electrification in society and across the economy in a way that helps to keep rates low for people and low for businesses.
S. Furstenau: I’ll probably hand it back to the critic for the official opposition. It’s interesting, this conversation, because I think it’s very important.
The minister indicates that we have to be considering: how do we prioritize electricity use? How do we meet our emissions? How do we imagine a future where we’re achieving the stated goals of government? Yet the contradiction that lies in the midst of this for me and for our caucus is using B.C.’s electricity to fuel a fossil fuel industry in the 2020s — a fossil fuel industry that, according to the International Energy Agency, demand is going to decline for by the end of this decade.
We seem to be putting a lot of our energy eggs, potentially, into a fossil fuel basket, which really doesn’t align with the stated goals of reducing our emissions and having a clean energy economy, when we’re creating the conditions to continually fuel the fossil fuel industry instead of the whole rest of B.C.’s economy with the clean energy that we’re generating. I just think that there is a fundamental contradiction in this equation.
To see legislation that contemplates understanding that we should be prioritizing, that cryptocurrency is not an industry we want to be providing enormous amounts of energy to…. But the energy to the cryptocurrency industry is nothing compared to what six electrified LNG facilities would require.
It’s a very puzzling equation we seem to have in this province that we, on the one hand, have a government that says, “We want to lower our emissions; we want to be a clean energy economy,” and on the other hand, keeps creating the conditions for and subsidizing the fossil fuel industry — subsidizing an industry that, with the fracking, the extraction, the transportation, the processing and then the shipping, long before any of the fossil gas gets burned, already creates enormous amounts of methane emissions.
I know that the minister and I talked about this in budget estimates, that there are some improvements to methane emissions. But methane emissions more…. More methane emissions….
I just can’t make sense of a government leaning into an industry, leaning into a dirty fossil fuel industry in 2024, in us having gone from zero to potentially six LNG facilities in this province, as our provincial emissions have gone up, have gone the wrong way. It’s very hard to wrap my head around how this makes any sense.
We should be recognizing that yes, we need to electrify the economy. We have the potential for so many other industries and economic drivers and engines, but the amount of energy potentially consumed by one dirty fossil fuel industry means that not only is an enormous amount of electricity potentially going there, but the cost of electricity for the rest of British Columbia, for people who live here, will also be affected, I anticipate.
I wanted to add that. Really, this is an example of a government, this legislation, saying, “We should take a role in determining where the electricity is going,” yet not taking that step to recognize that LNG, in 2024, should not be where B.C. is putting its clean energy.
I will hand it back to the official opposition critic.
T. Shypitka: The minister said something there about a legislative framework that needs to be in place, to the Leader of the Third Party. We have a legislative framework in place under the SOP right now.
In regards to that piece of legislation that we’re repealing right now in the Clean Energy Act, part 4…. In that piece of legislation, under the Clean Energy Act — I think it’s clause 15(1), eligible facilities — could the act be amended in regards to 25 percent participation for First Nations? Could that not be inserted into clause 15 somewhere?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.
I appreciate the intention of the question, but to amend the legislation simply to add a minimum requirement for First Nations co-ownership or equity wouldn’t address all the other issues that we are addressing here, which is standing up a utility scale, competitive procurement process to help keep the prices of electricity down for British Columbians. That is what the call for power is, of course: an alternate route of working through the funds and the relationship with the New Relationship Trust to address smaller-scale projects for First Nations to continue to undertake.
T. Shypitka: So yeah. The question was just clearly could that not be amended in clause 15 to bring 25 percent equity shareholders to First Nations. Could that not be possible?
Hon. J. Osborne: Again, to do so would not address the other issues that we are trying to address, which is utility-scale projects that help keep the price of electricity down for British Columbians, as well as a competitive procurement process rather than a fixed-price process.
T. Shypitka: I understand that. I’m just taking one piece at a time here. I’ll address the other side on utility scale–sized projects.
I understand the rationale behind B.C. Hydro wanting larger-scale projects of 40 megawatts or greater. That’s understood. It’s a little bit more sustainable. When you get that size of scale of project, it’s a little easier to keep things a little bit tighter for cost, for the ratepayer. I understand that.
My question is: under the current SOP, could the SOP be amended to include 25 percent Indigenous ownership?
Hon. J. Osborne: The SOP, which has not been in place for five years…. I mean, yes, it technically could be amended to do so, but that amendment on its own would fail to address other aspects of the program, the program that has been suspended for five years.
The call for power process that is in place now, of course, as we have been discussing during this committee stage, will afford the opportunity to achieve many more objectives than the complete sense of what section 15 outlines would enable us to do.
T. Shypitka: That’s good. So that’s one part. Now we’ll address the other side on the sustainability under the SOP.
Government, under direction from B.C. Hydro and consultation, wants to bring forward larger-scale projects that are 40 megawatts or greater. The minister has also stated numerous times that there are provisions in place. We don’t know what those provisions actually are on the $140 million stopgap, I call it, on those smaller projects that have been successful, quite honestly.
The minister recited, I think, 25 projects that were part of the SOP, 160 megawatts. We’re not talking a lot of power here, but what we are talking about is that a lot of smaller communities, a lot of them Indigenous communities that are very remote, that benefit greatly from the SOP program could essentially be extinguished as soon as the $140 million, however we divide that out…. They could be lost. I’m fearing that smaller-scale projects won’t get the recognition or the opportunity to bring safe, clean, reliable energy to their small communities.
Maybe we can start there. With the $120 per megawatt that we’re trying to get down to…. We’re looking towards, now, a $70-per-megawatt price in coordination with long-run marginal costs. Maybe the minister can answer: how will that long-run marginal cost shape the acceptance of any participants that want to come forward with a proposal?
H. Yao: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
H. Yao: On behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, I want to take this opportunity to welcome students from Timothy Christian secondary.
I would like to introduce their teacher, Bill Beeke, I believe, and the 22 students, all from grade 10.
Please join us in welcoming our lovely students.
Debate Continued
Hon. J. Osborne: I believe that we canvassed this quite extensively yesterday, so I’d like to give one more answer but then maybe suggest we move on.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
I do want to be clear again in delineating there are three types of projects we’re speaking of, and I think the member is touching on all of them.
First is the utility-scale projects as part of the call for power, the 40-megawatt minimum, and approaching the long-run marginal cost of adding or procuring new energy to add to the system of about $70-per-gigawatt hour. We expect to see projects approach that, but we won’t know until the bids are in, and that will be later this year.
There is the second, the smaller projects that First Nations might undertake through the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative. That is the funding that funding through the New Relationship Trust will help to support. And again, part of the reason for adding that funding is that a smaller project simply would not be able to compete, and the price of energy that would have to be purchased by B.C. Hydro could add burden onto the ratepayer. That’s why it’s important for us to help support those projects with helping to cover the cost differential to help bring that into a viable position for those nations, knowing how important they are.
Then the third type of project would be those in non-grid-connected remote communities and through projects like the community energy diesel reduction program, working to reduce those communities’ reliance on fossil fuels by helping them build renewable energy projects. That’s a separate program and not part of the legislation that we’re contemplating today.
Again, the focus of this piece of the legislation is to remove the sections that describe the standing offer program, as we move away from a program we haven’t used for five years for fixed-priced contracts at a high rate into a call for power that will provide utility-scale affordable renewables that can be integrated into the grid whilst we support those First Nations wanting to undertake smaller projects through a separate process.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
The House resumed; the Deputy Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: This House shall sit adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 23; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act, to order.
On clause 1.
T. Wat: I would like to ask the minister: could the minister provide some details on what consultations have taken place prior to the development of this legislation and which groups, which organizations and which individuals were engaged during this consultation?
Hon. N. Sharma: Before I start, I want to introduce the people that are with me today. I have Haiqa Cheema, my ADM in the AG’s office, and Mariam Okwengu, the executive director from the anti-racism division.
This bill, actually, is based upon one of the most extensive consultation processes, I think, in…. I’m going to say forever, but I have no way to verify that. For legislation, it was pretty extensive. We modelled it a little bit after the Anti-Racism Data Act but, of course, the content of this was a bit different.
We gave out 70 grants to organizations. If the member wants a list, we can provide a list of the organizations. That was to lead their own consultations and their community engagements to help us understand what should and could be included in an anti-racism piece of legislation. That resulted in about 5,000 people giving us feedback and helping to frame the content of the bill.
We also made sure that it was across B.C., including rural communities. We did Indigenous-specific engagement, which involved not only nation governments but also FNLC and our co-development processes that we always engage when we develop legislation. That led to the Indigenous-specific content of the bill before you.
We also did online engagement, which was open to everybody in B.C. We did a big launch of that, and we received about 2,000 submissions online. Because of the nature of the bill in removing systemic racism within government, we did internal consultations as well within the public service.
Those were the areas, broadly, that we covered, and we have the names of the specific organizations if the member wants them.
T. Wat: Thank you, Minister.
The minister says a $70,000 grant. Is it in total, for this consultation?
Hon. N. Sharma: With the specific community engagement, just to put the numbers, it was up to $5,000 that a community group was eligible for, for those open engagements. That was to host and conduct an engagement on the bill. That was the cost.
T. Wat: I just want to clarify again. So $5,000 for each group, and a total of $70,000 for the consultation.
Hon. N. Sharma: Okay. I think I see, maybe….
Just to provide more clarity, it was 70 organizations that received up to $5,000 for the engagement. I believe the total that we spent on that portion of the engagement was $300,000. There was also specific funding that went to the First Nations Leadership Council, the Modern Treaty Alliance and, also, Métis Nation. That was in addition to the $300,000.
T. Wat: The $300,000 was to the 70 organizations. That’s the racialized community organizations. I just want to clarify.
Then those engagements with the First Nations…. The amount of money was separate and in addition to the $300,000.
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. We were very careful when we selected the organizations through the screening process that they represented a diversity of organizations and, also, geographic diversity across the province. The list, which I can provide the member, shows that.
The $300,000 was for the community grants. The money that went to the First Nations Leadership Council — I think it was $250,000 — was on top of that because of the number of nations that are in the province.
T. Wat: Thank you, Minister.
I would like to have a list of those organizations.
Just to ask briefly. Does it cover every racialized community, including the Jewish community organization and the Muslim community organization as well?
Hon. N. Sharma: Okay. I’m happy to provide a list to the member, but I can point out just some of the organizations that received funding.
It’s important to remember that some of these are…. Their gatherings are interfaith gatherings. It’s multi-faith, including Muslim and Jewish, so it’s hard to…. They’re not specific to that, but they did interface.
Foundation for a Path Forward, specifically the Richmond Jewish Day School parent advisory committee, Voices of Muslim Women foundation. Then the Engaged Communities Canada Society also did interfaith work. The Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society also did interfaith work.
Those are just some of the organizations. There’s a long list here, and we’ll provide a copy to the member.
T. Wat: The minister said that there are criteria of geographical representation as well. How about the racialized community representation? We are a multicultural community, a multicultural province. Does the minister’s office make sure that every ethnic group has a representative organization involved in these 70 organizations so that they can present their point of view about the communities, what kind of racism that particular ethnic community, racialized community is facing?
Hon. N. Sharma: The team took really great care in making sure that the community organizations were representative not only of the groups in our province but also geographically, to cover off all voices.
There are a few things that led to the development of the protections to make sure that that happens. One is the criteria that were set out for the grant application. It was taking into account intersectionality, faith-based groups. If there was broader scope engagement, then the amount that an organization could get could be increased.
Also, with the online engagement, it opened it up to everybody. Not only were we doing targeted groups that we knew had a reach in their community that could lead the type of discussions we wanted and covered it off for different racialized communities to make sure they were represented; we also had public town halls beforehand. Before the grant became public, the team had town halls to explain it to organizations, to say what our intention was with the engagement and how they could apply to help host one.
We tried to do that to make sure we were getting it out to all organizations and all people that represent different groups in the province.
T. Wat: The town halls that the minister mentioned — how many town halls were held before the grants were given to these 70 organizations, and in what geographical areas were those town halls being held?
Hon. N. Sharma: The pre-work was two virtual town halls that were held for people, organizations across the province. But we also have, through the work that we did previously with the Anti-Racism Data Act, a network of organizations across the province that are better connected to government through Resilience B.C., so we’re able to get the word out to not only organizations but different parts of the province through that network.
T. Wat: Back to these 70 organizations. Were these 70 organizations basically selected by the team working for the Attorney General’s anti-racism branch?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah. It followed our normal granting procedures under the ministry staff.
T. Wat: I want to ask about the definition of public harm. How was the definition of public harm developed for this act? Was this influenced by models from other jurisdictions?
Hon. N. Sharma: Just some clarity from the member. I think she’s referring to the definition of “community harm.” Is that right?
T. Wat: It was public harm.
Hon. N. Sharma: Maybe I could just get some more guidance for the question because I don’t believe that this bill defines public harm. But we do have community harm in the act.
T. Wat: Sorry. My apologies. Yes.
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question.
This is a very important part of this bill, the definition of community harm. Just to give the history of where it came from, the Human Rights Commissioner did a report called the Grandmother report, and that set out a definition of the term community harm. We adopted it in the Anti-Racism Data Act legislation, but also it’s referenced, as you can see, in this one, too, that definition.
To make clear what the definition includes, because I think it’s really important…. It includes racism, prejudice, stereotyping, bias, stigmatization or other harms that a group of people might experience. It’s meant to be very broad to capture anything that we would think of in terms of singling out one group for their qualities over another. I think I gave the list: racism, prejudice, stereotyping, bias, stigmatization. It’s meant to be a very broad definition. That helps to serve the content of the bill and the powers and how they’re used.
T. Wat: Has the minister’s office referenced other jurisdictions that have the same kind of term as “community harm” or just basically based it on the Human Rights Commissioner’s report?
Hon. N. Sharma: No. This is another example in the bill of where we’re really leading the way in British Columbia when it comes to systemic racism, because this definition, as far as I know and our team is aware, is not used anywhere else in the country.
T. Wat: How does the minister define “systemic racism,” and how does this, again, compare with definitions in other jurisdictions?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member again for the question. It helps me explain the approach of this legislation in a holistic way.
There is no definition of systemic racism contained in the bill. That was deliberate because of what we heard from our consultations.
What we heard, and actually the history of the way the conversations change, is that…. The discussion was that it is not up to government to define the experiences that community members are having. And if you enshrine a definition in legislation, it’s slower to change. The ability to change that, with the evolving nature of how community harm is showing up, which is defined, makes it harder to adapt.
Instead, what this bill does is set up a process to ensure that government is continually responding to the changing ways that communities are experiencing systemic racism or that definitions are changing.
That process shows up in many different ways, but one of them is through the action plan. When government has to issue an action plan, that would be a place to put definitions that are receptive to the time period and what the community is experiencing at that time.
One example is with anti-Black racism. That shows up and changes differently, and the community might be experiencing it differently. When government is coming up with, and will have to come up with, an action plan, it’s the way for us to touch in with community and understand, and we continually evolve our definitions as they show up for people.
That was kind of a deliberate choice, to make sure that the fluidity of definitions can be contained in the work of government and not within legislation. We will probably get into details about how that shows up at different times with the checks and balances that are built in, within the legislation.
M. Lee: I’m pleased to join our colleague, shadow minister responsible for multiculturalism and anti-racism and member for Richmond North Centre, in this committee debate, my schedule permitting as well.
I appreciate that the Attorney General referred to the framework around the development of the action plan that’s referred to in clause 4. Of course, we are reviewing the definitions in clause 1, which has six definitions. We’re just getting into an understanding of some of those definitions — in respect of community harm, for example — that the member for Richmond North Centre just started into. There may be other questions to follow on that.
I appreciate the opportunity to explore the scope of this bill. Certainly, there has been a discussion today around consultation, which I would like to review as well, at some juncture during a break, in terms of the Attorney General’s response. In the definitions of defined terms, certainly, I see the definition of “Indigenous peoples” and the reference to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
There are other terms, of course, that are utilized in clause 4, like Islamophobia and antisemitism. There is a question that arises in defining peoples. Here we have a definition around Indigenous peoples, but we don’t have definitions around other diverse peoples, racialized members of other ethnocultural communities in the province. The minister just referred to Black Canadians, and there’s no definition there either.
Can I ask the Attorney General why it is that there’s only a definition of Indigenous peoples in this Anti-Racism Act?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, I talked a little bit about the approach that we took when it came to defining or not defining. I think there are specific reasons for that, which I’m sure we will get into.
The reason for the specific inclusion of Indigenous peoples in there is, very clearly, because this act is about the actions of government in removing systemic racism. The history of colonization on Indigenous people in this province and the systems that were in place within our governments, to in fact put into place colonization, leaves them in a very particular situation with government response.
This actually was part of our commitments under UNDRIP, under the Declaration Act plan. The specific ask was to have an Indigenous-specific anti-racism plan, because of the work of UNDRIP, so when we did our Indigenous-specific engagement, it became very clear what our obligations needed to be under this piece of legislation. There is a specific need — because of that commitment and our work of UNDRIP, and the history of the province — to include a definition of Indigenous peoples and to have a specific anti–Indigenous racism plan.
M. Lee: I just left my own estimates process with the Minister of Indigenous Relations of Reconciliation, and we have a member who continues on with that debate, in parallel to this chamber.
I certainly recognize that in respect of Indigenous peoples, as defined under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which was passed with our support in the official opposition — the B.C. Liberals, now B.C. United — that there was a process that was followed there. That, of course, was embedded in other legislation that the government has brought forward over the last 4½ years, including when the government brought closure on Bill 36 on the Health Professions and Occupations Act.
I did join my colleague, the member for Prince George–Valemount, on that bill, though we only got a third of the way through that bill before we opposed the bill ultimately, in terms of the implementations of dealing with systemic racism against Indigenous peoples in the health care system.
We have other examples of systemic racism in our province, including against people of my descent and the descent of the member for Richmond North Centre, and that is Chinese Canadians, or Canadians of Chinese descent, who built the railway in this province, who sacrificed their lives to connect that national railway in the late 1800s, literally, who were then discriminated against by so many British Columbians, including members of this chamber, this Legislative Assembly.
I know, when I went to Ottawa a year ago in the summer, in June, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923, that there are clear examples of systemic discrimination, including in this province. I recognize, certainly, as the shadow minister responsible for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the importance of defining Indigenous peoples. It’s only through definition, through the work the government has previously done on the anti-racism data legislation that defined and started addressing, in the sense of tracking data….
There are categories. There are definitions that I would have thought, after all the good work, including by the committee that worked on this bill with government, that there would be definitions in this bill, just like we have the term Indigenous peoples. We use terms like Islamophobia and antisemitism.
Did the government consider, for example, just if I take that and the way it’s deployed in clause 4 of this bill…? Why is it that there aren’t other definitions, for example, of Jewish people or Muslim people?
Hon. N. Sharma: The clear, I guess, discussion that we had with our deep consultations is that it causes a lot of harm for government to step in the role of defining people and what their race and their background is.
You can imagine that if we went through the demographics of British Columbia and sought to define every single group, then not only, I think, would that be, from what we heard, a very harmful conversation to some individuals about what definition they fit in under, but I would argue it’s not a helpful exercise for the work that we’re doing with this Anti-Racism Act.
Instead, the definitions are very broad. I mentioned this before. The definition of community harm includes racism, prejudice, stereotyping, bias, stigmatization and other harm to groups of people.
With a definition like that, and the tools that are part of the bill, you have the ability to respond to things that communities are facing without government, which I think would be more harmful than not, setting out definitions of which groups should be protected or shouldn’t be protected or should be named or shouldn’t be named. This, I would argue, is an exercise that actually works against the spirit of what we’re trying to do, which is to remove systemic racism in the province.
I will say that we wanted to make it very clear what racism included, because anti-racism is experienced by different communities in different ways. This is why we put, specifically, in there, Islamophobia and antisemitism. We named them because we thought that that was a clear need to define — that the scope of this legislation includes that. So that that’s our approach, generally, when it comes to how we constructed the bill.
I move that committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS
RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); K. Greene in the chair.
The committee met at 11:13 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order.
We are meeting today to continue consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
On Vote 34: ministry operations, $59,002,000 (continued).
M. Lee: I said yesterday, in my first 30 minutes that we had in estimates….
Sorry. Can I just…? Okay. I’ll just ask my question. Apparently, I’m needed in Douglas Fir. I’m not sure why that is. I will be departing shortly to go debate Bill 23.
As I indicated to the shadow minister responsible, the MLA for Richmond North Centre…. I will be just introducing the discussion here with my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. That’s the message.
I would say, in terms of the DRIPA action plan…. We had some discussion yesterday relating to DRIPA itself and the alignment of laws to be consistent with DRIPA, section 3 of DRIPA itself.
I hope to have the opportunity to walk through, with the minister, some of the key action items that are set out in action items 1.1 to 1.5 of the action plan. The minister has referred to some of these items, both in his opening comments and in response to other important pieces of legislation in front of the House, including Bill 25. So I’d like to have that opportunity.
I do know, as the minister has heard me speak on other bills and as other ministers of this government have heard me speak on other bills, that the consideration around the adoption of UNDRIP in this province 4½ years ago, with the support of the official opposition — the B.C. Liberals, now B.C. United — was done on the basis…. There were clear confirmations coming from the minister’s predecessor, Minister Scott Fraser, as he was then known.
I know, as we continue to look at the implementation of UNDRIP and DRIPA in pieces of legislation, including even in the Land Act amendments, for example, the failed process the government had put forward under section 7 of DRIPA. We’ve seen other land-based pieces of legislation, considerations by the Water, Land and Resource Stewardship Ministry, in terms of other aspects around section 7, joint decision-making, for example.
We had always understood, from the get-go, when we went forward through five days of committee review on Bill 41, as it was then known, that it would always be read through the lens of section 35 jurisprudence. This is not dissimilar, again, as I mentioned yesterday, from the government’s own position that they took in the Mineral Tenure Act review decisions of Mr. Justice Ross, as he considered, as I understand it, some of the Hansard transcript back in the day, from the 2019 period, when Bill 41 was being reviewed.
I know, as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has been part of the caucus that has been hearing some of that dialogue, some of the understandings for which Bill 41 was supported — that juncture 4½ years ago, really, as the minister talks about five years later and some of the challenging progress that still needs to be made under the implementation of DRIPA — that we still need to have a clear understanding in terms of the parameters.
What do we mean when the government has that continued understanding of section 35 jurisprudence? This is where the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself have a discussion. We may have the member for Abbotsford West join in the discussion at some juncture.
I’m going to turn it over now to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie on the expectation and understanding that the points that are raised here with the minister…. I may have the opportunity to come back into estimates discussion and have some further discussion on some of the points the member is covering.
I will just depart now to go debate Bill 23.
M. Morris: As my colleague was able to articulate, there’s a lot of confusion throughout the province with respect to DRIPA. Not with respect to reconciliation. There is a lot of support for reconciliation right across the province. But there’s a lot of confusion with respect to the impacts of DRIPA on the day-to-day operations.
There seems to be a significant amount of transactions with land tenure, with various agreements that farmers and ranchers require in order to have a fully functioning operation, that appear to be held up — land transactions, tenure transactions and whatnot.
We’ll get into a little bit of DRIPA and some of the things that my colleagues were saying. I recall the lengthy discussions that we had on DRIPA when it was being championed through the House a number of years ago here now.
I’m a huge fan of reconciliation. One of the main reasons that I supported DRIPA was that there was nothing that I could see in DRIPA that already wasn’t articulated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not only articulated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but supported by decades of jurisprudence through the Supreme Court of Canada and other levels of court across Canada, which gave me a lot of comfort in looking at DRIPA.
Some of my questions will be related to that and looking for the support that we have, within British Columbia, for all the people of British Columbia.
I’m curious as to how many negotiations are going on currently within the province and what the dollar figure is right now, with respect to reconciliation within British Columbia. How many of those negotiations are open to the public and not covered by non-disclosure agreements?
Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for not only his support of DRIPA but his general support for reconciliation. The member commented that there was little to be added, I think, by DRIPA in light of the existence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I point out to the hon. member that the Charter does not include section 35. That’s a separate part of the constitution.
In the Charter is section 25, which the Supreme Court recently had occasion to look at in the context of self-government. But I think the member may be speaking about section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, where of course Aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed. I think perhaps that’s what he was getting at.
I want to specifically address the very thoughtful question about engagement and the kind of work that we’re doing across British Columbia. The actual UN declaration refers to a phrase that I often have occasion to repeat. It talks of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. Those are the terms. And I think that’s a fair summary of the vast amount of work that we do with all First Nations in British Columbia — sometimes very specific transactions, sometimes as far as modern treaties. There’s a great range of the things that we take on together with Indigenous governing bodies.
The member was asking about the nature of the work we do and how that relates to the individuals, tenure holders, communities, and so forth, that are affected. The answer is that we really believe that agreements are more successful when everyone has the right to be heard. I caution that these agreements are structured as government-to-government negotiations. But frequently it helps to have the involvement of tenure holders. Local governments are often engaged in a very meaningful way. I intend to provide some examples in a moment of that kind of engagement that we undertake.
There are no kinds of confidentiality agreements that I’m aware of, of the kind that the member is contemplating. But there are of course discussions that take place when sensitive matters are involved that are involving just the governments affected. Our general commitment is to openness and transparency in those processes.
Some examples of stakeholder engagement that I might talk about…. Before the House currently is a bill that relates to the Haida title. Our ministry has met with community and business leaders and hosted community meetings and mailed information to every home on the islands in that context.
Let me talk about modern treaty. Kitselas and Kitsumkalum are treaties in the northwest that are currently, we hope, to be at least initialled shortly, after years and years of negotiation. Those have involved a number of public engagement open houses that have taken place in person, in Terrace over the last year and virtually as well. We publicly released a what-we-heard report about the engagement on February 14 of 2024 that details and describes the engagement activities and participation rates, including feedback and questions collected during the engagement, along with the responses given from the negotiating partners.
The objective, of course, is to build awareness and support as we get to the final negotiations of these historic treaties with the Kitselas treaty and Kitsumkalum treaty. When I was up in the Terrace area not long ago, I met with Mayor Sean Bujtas, who has been a very active participant in those negotiations.
Closer to home, the Te’mexw Treaty Association involves, of course, Canada and British Columbia. We’ve been negotiating actively since 1995 with five member nations in the lower part of Vancouver Island. And we’ve had ongoing engagement with local government and various stakeholders in that process, including a series of public open houses last year, eight in person and two virtual, to again raise awareness.
Finally, I could just mention the Lake Babine Nation, where we’ve had another kind of an agreement, a comprehensive reconciliation agreement that was signed in 2020. The province has been involved with the nation and neighbouring First Nations, property owners, local governments, tenure holders and other stakeholders and engaged them through letters, information sessions, one-on-one meetings and open houses. Indeed, the adjustments were made on the basis of the feedback received during those engagement processes.
I thought that by giving a few examples, I might be able to shed a bit of light on the nature of the engagement that takes place across British Columbia.
M. Morris: I’m aware of a lot of those engagements across the province. At one time, I was the detachment commander up in New Aiyansh, back in the days prior to the Nisg̱a’a treaty, and I was also privy to a lot of the pre-treaty agreement discussions with the Nisg̱a’a and law enforcement and some of the different aspects of it. I do know how a lot of those different discussions work. I’ve spent most of my life living in the northern 80 percent of the province, living in First Nations communities and dealing a lot with First Nations governments.
When I mentioned, earlier on, the Charter and DRIPA…. When I refer to section 35 and the Charter, I’m talking about the Constitution Act, 1982, and all of the Charter as it pertains to all the people of British Columbia — so in addition to section 35 of the Constitution Act, all the other sections that apply to Canadians right across the province here, including our First Nations populations across Canada as well.
The genesis of my question earlier was to try and get an understanding of the number of rights and title negotiations going on currently right across the province, much like Haida. I’m sure there must be other ones here. The Blueberry issue is going on. There are a number of First Nations communities that might be involved in that. I’m wondering how many are currently being negotiated across the province right now.
Hon. M. Rankin: The member asked, essentially, about how many negotiations involving rights and title across British Columbia are underway. I would have to say that I think the answer would be hundreds, and I’ll try to break that down. The province has an obligation to consult, the duty to consult, confirmed in the Haida case in 2004. That, of course, involves all sorts of activities.
When the member talks about rights and title, he’s not just, presumably, talking about resource development in tenures but other kinds of rights, like education, child care, social things and health, as well as some of the resource contexts.
I’m trying to do justice to the breadth of the question by giving some examples. At the moment, we are involved with 37 active treaty tables under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission. We have five or six active, comprehensive reconciliation discussions underway with various First Nations and dozens of more specific reconciliation agreements. Since April 2022, 80 First Nations are involved with what we call FCRSAs. Those are consultation agreements on forestry.
There are also many economic and community development agreements involving mining and resource development and other things. As I indicated earlier, many, many negotiations are underway in the context of education, child care, families — MCFD, as an example, and other ministries that our ministry, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, supports in their ongoing work.
When you add that to the duty to consult and accommodate that the province, as the provincial Crown, has to undertake, I think the answer would be that hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of deliberations, engagements, with First Nations occur every year.
M. Morris: I’m certainly aware of that. I was more looking at the negotiations that are going on with respect to rights and title. The minister mentioned that there are five or six reconciliation discussions that are going on right now.
What does the minister mean by reconciliation agreements with these five or six particular ones?
Hon. M. Rankin: When we talk of comprehensive reconciliation agreements, we mean to, in that expression, connote more than simply one-off transactions that might occur. We have those kinds of site-specific, nation-specific reconciliation agreements on a particular topic.
When we say comprehensive reconciliation agreements, and I’m going to give you several examples, we are talking about forestry work, economic development, health services, access to sociocultural programs, often wildlife and rebuilding governance capacity in various First Nations — supporting that so they can more effectively partner with us on land and resources decisions in their territory.
Examples of them, for the member, would include the Sechelt, the shíshálh First Nation, which has a foundation agreement with the province.
The Haíłzaqv has a very comprehensive reconciliation agreement.
Closer to the member’s territory, if I may, the Carrier Sekani pathways agreement is a really good example of a comprehensive agreement.
Lake Babine is one that we’re very proud of, which was done….
Again, without the kind of full engagement of the federal government, in some cases, but solely with the province, some of these examples. But they’re comprehensive in nature.
I could go through dozens of more specific agreements, but that, I think, will give a flavour of the kinds of things I meant when I used that expression.
With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask to leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.