Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 437
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
Office of the provincial health officer, report, Clean, Safe, and Reliable Drinking Water, 2017-18–2021-22 | |
Orders of the Day | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2024
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.
E. Ross: I seek leave to make a few brief comments.
Leave granted.
Personal Statements
SERVICE AS MLA
AND MESSAGE OF
APPRECIATION
E. Ross: I struggled as a native growing up on reserve, so 20 years ago I decided that nobody was going to have to go through what I’d gone through. It’s why I support forestry, mining, LNG or anything connected to a strong economy, because a good job means a world of difference to people and communities. I hoped to do for B.C. what we did in Kitimat. I didn’t quite get there, but it has still been an amazing experience in this Legislature.
I want to thank the Legislature staff, the B.C. United LEC, the comms, research interns, my CAs in Terrace and Kitimat, my leadership race team, even the media, my riding association, the people of Skeena, my supporters all across B.C. and especially my parents, who found it hard to believe I ended up here.
As Haisla chief councillor, I originally started out fighting Christy Clark’s government, but I ended up teaming up with her government on forestry, mining and LNG. I’ll always be grateful to the B.C. Liberals for helping uplift an entire generation of British Columbians, who really needed it at the time. Thank you to Kevin Falcon and the B.C. United team for keeping up the fight.
I’ll never forget this place. I’ll never forget the Legislature and the processes. It’s what I expected an official institution to be, and it far exceeded my expectations. I feel very honoured and grateful to be a small part of it. I’m going to miss my colleagues as well, on both sides of the House, believe it or not.
Thanks to my wife and family. They don’t like the time that I spend away from home. They don’t like the criticism I get. But they appreciate what I’ve been trying to do for the last 20 years. I couldn’t do it without my wife. On behalf of my family, on behalf of Skeena, thank you for being part of this incredible journey.
And happy birthday to my wife and my granddaughter Elise.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]
Introductions by Members
Hon. H. Bains: I would take the opportunity to thank the member for being here and wish him well for his next journey.
I have two sets of introductions today.
A delegation of CUPE B.C. is here in the House. They met many MLAs already, and they will continue to meet with the MLAs, talking about their experiences at workplaces and the areas that need to be improved.
I say that we are fully committed to work with you to make sure that all workers go to work. They deserve to have safe workplaces. Anything less is not acceptable, I know, to you — not to us as well.
In the gallery today, led by their president, Karen Ranalletta, are Paul Simpson, Erin Akers, Cassie Deezar, Randelle Langevin, Melanie Brown, Nick Angrignon and David Fleming. Please help me give them a warm welcome, and please listen to their stories. They are heart-wrenching. It just shows how much work they pour into their heart and soul in order to serve us, our people out there at their workplaces. Please give them a very, very warm welcome.
Mr. Speaker, I just noticed, also up in the gallery, my dear friend and comrade — we worked together when we were with the IWA and with the Steelworkers — Harkewal Dhaliwal, who was a plant chair in Mainland Sawmills. He also put everything that he had to make sure that for the workers in that place, their health and safety is protected and that there is fairness at the workplace. He never gave that up, even after his retirement.
He’s here along with other co-workers who also worked at Mainland Sawmills, Bawa Dhesi and Kewal Bahia. They are quite a team, during their working days, and even after retirement, they continue to be activists. They haven’t lost the energy a bit.
Please help me give them a very warm welcome as well.
L. Doerkson: I am indeed pleased to introduce Patrice Gordon from Tatla Lake. She is an incredible nurse practitioner. She is a champion for rural health care. She is representing, of course, our health clinic at Tatla Lake today, along with the dream team of Dr. Rob, Nurse Ruth, and of course, LeeAnne.
They are an incredible group, very committed to our residents of the Chilcotin area, and they do unbelievable work. They’re here to meet with the Minister of Health later on today.
I’m grateful that she has come all this way. Would the House please make her very welcome.
Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. You have a great hat, by the way. Thank you for your dedication. I’m wearing my hat a little bit later. I just didn’t want to bring it into the House.
Well, in the very near future, 2½ hours, one of the most popular annual events of the Legislature will be in full swing on the back steps. Thanks to numerous organizations and my hard-working staff, we are hosting a barbecue in recognition of B.C. Beef Day.
During B.C. Beef Day, these individuals certainly rise to rock-star levels. However, it would be unfair not to acknowledge that they are also rock stars in many communities for their expertise and efforts during some of the most challenging days in the province.
The British Columbia Cattlemen have been critical partners for government during times of drought, fires and floods. They have provided invaluable insights on several matters and are an essential part of our front-line team.
I sincerely thank all of them on behalf of British Columbians for always being there for us.
It’s my pleasure to welcome in the precinct today Brian Thomas, Werner Stump, Julianne Paulo Brown, Connor Brown, Rylon Elliott.
And we have a family — John, Bobby, Will and Duke Parkes. Wonderful. A family affair.
Kenneth White and Ken Ilnicki.
Welcome to the House. Have a wonderful day. We are so grateful for everything you do.
K. Chen: Today there will be 30 grade 5 students from St. Michael’s Elementary from Burnaby-Lougheed visiting the Legislature with their families and teachers from the school, including Ms. Madison Wolcyzk.
As we wrap up the session this week, I just would like to give a special thanks to the parliamentary education office for their amazing job hosting tours and sharing the work we do in the Legislature with guests and young learners like those from my community today.
I ask the House to please make the students and members from St. Michael’s Elementary School very welcome.
S. Bond: On behalf of my colleagues from Cariboo North and P.G.-Mackenzie, we are very delighted to welcome some special guests to the Legislature today. I want to recognize Chief Dolleen Logan and Coun. Wendy Jael of the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation.
Both of these women and particularly Chief Logan are strong, incredible leaders in our part of the province. I am delighted to call them friends. We’re just so thankful that they’re here today and showing the kind of leadership that First Nations are showing across our province.
Joining the Lheidli T’enneh delegates today is someone no stranger to this place and to many people in the chamber, Mr. Todd Corrigall, who is supporting the Lheidli T’enneh. He was the past executive director of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce. He did an excellent job. I should tell you that he is here despite the fact that yesterday was his wedding anniversary.
Happy anniversary to you and your wonderful wife. You have some work to do when you get home.
Please join me in making these very special guests welcome to the Legislature today.
Hon. M. Rankin: Joining us in the gallery today is Katisha Paul, also known as TSEPYULPULWET. She is a political science student. She’s the elected Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs youth representative. She is a board member of the Urban Native Youth Association, a BCAFN First Nation climate leadership steering committee member and an administrative mentee of Tsatsu Stalqayu, Coastal Wolf Pack.
If you have met Katisha, you might expect that she will one day be on the floor with other members. She has a strong interest in what we do here.
Would everyone please make her welcome.
B. Stewart: It is a pleasure to rise in the chamber to welcome some guests here from West Kelowna–Peachland, Steven Johnston and his wife Leah.
Steven has worked many years in the concrete industry for Kelowna Ready Mix but, more importantly, put himself on the map by challenging a former mayor in West Kelowna by running and almost winning back a number of terms. He’s been a councillor for two terms and regional district director.
Steven, I welcome you and Leah here to the chamber for the first time in the gallery.
I also want to welcome Pavneet Singh back. Pavneet is from Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream. Pavneet is here again for a second time in the chamber and yesterday was introduced with his many business accomplishments here.
Pavneet, welcome.
Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s always such a treat to be able to welcome people from my community into the House. We’re joined in the gallery today by Kristina Kearley, member of my community, member of the board of Autism B.C., member of IATSE 891.
They work as a film technician. They’re very active in their union and in their community. During COVID, Kristina worked with others to organize the collection and delivery of hygiene supplies to vulnerable populations. They are standing up every day in their workplace and in our community for vulnerable people, including supporting teachers and students through support for SOGI.
Would the House please help me make Kristina very, very welcome.
Statements
MARRIAGE OF MLA FOR
PORT
MOODY–COQUITLAM
B. D’Eith: I rise in the House today to just bring up a really, really special occasion. Two years ago, there was an historic moment in this House when the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam proposed to his girlfriend at the time. Actually, it was historic because it had never happened before in this House. It was really, really special.
This Saturday at Buntzen Lake, they got married. It was two years to the day, and it was really exciting. Probably one of the funniest moments was when they finally got…. It was a beautiful day at the lake, and there were all the people out there. “You can kiss the bride.” They kissed, and the whole beach erupted in applause. It was awesome.
I apologize, Speaker, but I’d like to, please…. If we could all, please, give a big congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Glumac.
Introductions by Members
R. Merrifield: Joining us in the gallery today is Ryan Painter, who is a consultant for Sasquatch Resources.
He has joined with a couple of others, who are Pete Smith, director and CEO of Sasquatch Resources; Justin Deveault, who is a resident of Duncan and director of Sasquatch Resources, also known as the man on the ground at Mount Sicker — he knows the mountain better than anyone and has been a professional prospector for many years; and Dr. Kelly Hyslop, who’s a resident of Salt Spring Island, consultant to Sasquatch Resources, a former medical doctor, a neurologist and has been a mining investor and entrepreneur for many years.
Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the House today.
Hon. M. Dean: Well, you will have noticed a very smart, educated and well-behaved group of students who have come into the gallery just now. They are from View Royal Elementary. We have two groups of students from View Royal Elementary — which is, obviously, in the Esquimalt-Metchosin constituency — coming to visit the Legislature today. They’re grade 4 and grade 5.
Would everybody please make them very welcome.
I also have the pleasure today of welcoming Aries to the House. Aries is an incredible young person from Esquimalt-Metchosin. After question period, I’m actually going to be presenting a petition that seeks to create a mentorship program here at the Legislature that allows young people to spend a week with an MLA to learn more about the work that we do here in this House.
Would everybody please join me in making Aries very welcome.
J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to introduce three friends who are visiting from the Lower Mainland, from Surrey. It was a great delight when I got a phone call to say that they would be arriving here today because it is always nice when our constituents actually visit us in the Legislature.
One of them, a dear friend I have known since 2011, is a tireless advocate for progressive issues but also a tireless worker to make sure progressives get elected, Harkewal Singh Dhaliwal, a brother to me and one of my biggest supporters during my highs and lows.
Along with him, we have Kewal Singh Bahia and Bawa Singh Dhesi. They will be here for the day today. After QP, they are going to go on a tour.
This is how far we have come along: they are actually going to be getting a tour in Punjabi. That is wonderful because, in our diverse province, the Legislature now has tours conducted in different languages.
I’m really looking forward to seeing them later on, but please help me welcome them to this beautiful chamber.
L. Doerkson: I have two more introductions.
I’m very pleased to introduce someone very well known to the members of this Legislature. Sechelt mayor John Henderson is here. He is an incredible advocate for his community.
Please make him feel very welcome.
We’re also joined in the gallery by Chris Morre. He is a former councillor of the district of Sechelt. He’s a very strong community advocate, of course. A successful entrepreneur, Chris and his family have transformed Bricker cidery into a thriving cidery, which is now a favourite tourist destination for the region. Chris is a B.C. United candidate for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and we’d love to welcome him to this Legislature.
Welcome.
Hon. G. Lore: Today in the gallery I have Zoë Carroll joining me. Zoë is an incredible young and engaged student. She’s at Glenlyon Norfolk secondary school. She reached out to me to have a conversation about what it looks like to bring more young people into politics.
Our obligation in this place is to share what we know and to increase access and to be part of a conversation. I’ve been blown away by the opportunity to work with her. She also attended the B.C. Youth Parliament last December, where she represented Oak Bay–Gordon Head, but I don’t hold it against her. She is engaged, thoughtful and so smart.
As part of her call to bring more young people into this place, she has brought with her a number of other students — Simon Wollenweber, Sofia Kanji, Maddy Anctil, Jacob Tam, Finn Adamson, Arwyn Morris, Areej Shariq and Owen Johnston-Voon. They’re accompanied by their teacher Elspeth Easton. I’ll be joining them for lunch.
I want to make them very welcome in this House for the visit today. As young, engaged students, this is a space for them and this is work for them.
Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.
Interjections.
D. Davies: I sometimes question how the Speaker picks his people. I don’t know if it’s…. You’d think I need some exercise, get my quads worked up.
Interjection.
D. Davies: Yes. There you go.
I’ve been quite lucky this session in having a number of people down from Fort St. John. Today I’d also like to introduce one of my guests that I have in the chamber, Russ Travis, who’s come down from Fort St. John. He has some grandkids here, but we’re also going to be doing some meetings here this afternoon. We gave him a little tour. It’s his first time in the Legislature.
We did a little tour last night. Like everybody who visits this building, it really is an incredible place. Like the member for Skeena said, it never upsets when you walk through these halls here.
Would the House please make Russ welcome.
D. Routley: I’d like to join the member for Kelowna-Mission in welcoming Sasquatch Resources Corp. — Dr. Kelly Hyslop, Justin Deveault and Pete Smith.
Sasquatch Resources Corp. is focused on sustainable development and community engagement. The sector provides the building blocks of a clean economy and clean technologies.
They are here to meet with the Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Ministry about their Mount Spieker project, which is in an area we locals call Copper Canyon, so you can imagine its history.
I’d like to welcome them. They represent the 35,000 workers in the sector that brings $7.3 billion to our economy.
They are joined by Ryan Painter, who is the executive director of a capital regional charitable gaming association known as Charityworks. Ryan does a lot of free seminars for groups that are applying for grants. In our own constituency over the last four years, we have seen a 100 percent increase in the amount of grant funding that is coming to our constituency, largely because of the work that he has done. I really appreciate that work.
I would like the House to recognize them and welcome them.
S. Furstenau: It is my honour to introduce in the House Aurora Carver and Matisse Alfaro. They are in the gallery this morning. They are both grade 9 students at Victoria High School, and they have a particular interest in politics and the environment.
They are excited to learn more about what we do in here, and hoping one day that they could be the ministers of environment. I think that would be a very good thing.
Would the House please make them both very welcome.
R. Parmar: It is a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and welcome some guests that I think are just behind me, if I am not mistaken — members of the Khalsa Diwan Society of Victoria, the Topaz Gurdwara, the seniors group.
This Sunday is going to mark 112 years to the day that the building stone was laid at the Topaz Gurdwara. It’s going to be a very important day for the community, and it’s so special for us to be able to invite them here in the House.
We’ve got a big group here, so apologies in advance for all these names I’m going to read out. We’ve got the president, Paramjit Singh Bhalla; Jaswinder Sihota; Daljit Dhanoya; Parm Sandhu; Massa Thind; Balwinder Atwal; Nancy Peachy; Roger Peachy; Raj Pagley; Bansi Pagley; Andy Jani; Mrs. Jani; Gurdish Atwal; B. Basi; Madanjit Bhala; Amarjit Dhillon; Jaswinder Johal; Kamaljit Sidhu; Inderjit Sandhu; Joginder Sohi; Harshdeep Singh; Amrit Kaur; Jasmeet Kaur; Harjit Singh; Harjinder Sidhu; Savita Tej Kaur; Gian Saroya; and Kewal Sihota.
Will the House please join me in making them all feel very welcome.
M. Elmore: Joining us today, we have students from John Oliver Secondary from the music program and led by C.J. Kumar.
We’re all in for a treat after you grab your barbecue for B.C. Beef Day. Come around to the front of the building. They’re going to be giving a musical performance to enjoy that, so I invite everybody to enjoy that today.
Please ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.
A. Olsen: This will probably be the last one, Mr. Speaker.
I want to introduce…. I won’t be in the room later when Fulford Elementary Allison Bain’s grade 4 through 6 will be here.
The House can make them feel welcome.
I also want to tip my hat to Dr. Kelly Hyslop. Salt Spring Island is always very well represented in this House.
Could the members here please make them feel very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M226 — LAND TITLE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
K. Kirkpatrick presented a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2024.
K. Kirkpatrick: I move today that a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2024, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.
We confront a critical issue that tarnishes our legal system: the enduring presence of racial covenants on property titles across British Columbia. Despite being legally null and void, these relics of a segregated past persist, staining our documents and diminishing our collective integrity.
The egregious nature of these covenants is exemplified by clauses such as — and I don’t like to read these in the House, but they are in our legal documents — “no person of the African or Asiatic race or of African or Asiatic descent, except the servants of the occupier of the premises and residence, shall reside or be allowed to remain on the premises.” This language, both exclusionary and degrading, underscores the urgency of our task.
The Land Title Amendment Act, 2024, mandates registrars to completely remove these covenants from land titles. It’s not enough to merely strike out and obscure them. We need to completely eradicate them to mend the deep-seated wounds they have caused.
I have met with the land title authority, and I know that this can be done. The act is a step forward to rectifying past injustice and combating xenophobia. It affirms our commitment to a society that stands firmly against hatred and ensures that no one continues to suffer from the remnants of past wrongs. If government is committed to anti-racism, this is an important step.
The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
K. Kirkpatrick: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M226, Land Title 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)
BEEF DAY
I. Paton: Happy B.C. Beef Day at the Legislature. Today we celebrate the hard-working ranchers who bring us some of the finest cow-calf operations in Canada.
From the lush, green pastures of the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island to the rugged hills of the Cariboo, Peace, Kootenay and Nicola regions, B.C. beef is renowned for its exceptional quality. Our farmers and ranchers are not only vital to our local economies, but they are also among some of the most skilled and dedicated agricultural producers in the province. They play a crucial role in supporting rural communities and ensuring our food supply remains robust.
These folks have faced numerous challenges over the years, from fires and drought to flooding, mudslides, loss of grazing tenures, water rights, predator losses and skyrocketing feed prices. Despite these obstacles, they continue their proud traditions, often working in slim profit margins.
Our cattlemen and cattlewomen are also tremendous stewards of the land, caring immensely about biodiversity, water security, water storage and doing their part to create positive impacts on rangeland in regards to carbon sequestration. Ranchers, as stewards of the land, also care about the environment, care about sustainability of the industry and also play a serious role in emergency management planning and coordination.
Most calves are born in spring. At about 100 pounds, they head up to summer grazing grounds with their mamas. They come back in the fall at about 600 pounds of protein, and they didn’t even burn any diesel to get there. And they kept the grasses down, which helps with fuel reduction for forest fires. The steers then make their way to B.C. or Alberta feedlots.
Supporting the folks that raise and feed cattle in this province is so important. By choosing B.C. beef at our farmers markets or local grocery stores, we’re not only getting a locally grown and humanely raised product, we’re also helping to sustain these family-run businesses.
Today we’re not just celebrating resilience; we’re also looking forward to a fantastic barbecue. Let’s raise a glass and a fork to the hard-working people who keep our plates full and our taste buds happy.
Thank you to all the B.C. ranchers and farmers out there. We appreciate everything you do.
GRADUATES OF 2024 IN VERNON-MONASHEE
H. Sandhu: Today I want to extend my best wishes and congratulations to 2024 grads from Vernon-Monashee, including their families, their amazing teachers and my daughter, Jasreen.
Next month on June 7, the first of our grad classes from Lumby’s Charles Bloom Secondary School celebrates this incredible accomplishment. They will be followed by the grad classes from Kalamalka Secondary, Clarence Fulton, W.L. Seaton, Vernon Christian School and Vernon Secondary.
Students from Okanagan College and UBCO are also achieving their milestones.
Dear grads, as you cross the stage this year, I hope you understand that the diploma or degree you receive represents more than years of formal education. It represents the challenges you faced, the relationships you built, the skills you honed and the memories you made.
Your efforts are an investment in yourself and your future. I hope you all remember this feeling of accomplishment in your upcoming ceremony for the rest of your life. Let this feeling be the light to guide you when things get difficult. You can do anything you set your mind to.
This graduation season I hope you take a moment to reflect on those who helped you to get to where you are: your families, friends, guidance counsellors, coaches and, of course, your teachers. The teachers, support staff and faculties in this province are a strong symbol of strength. I ask you to all reflect on and show your gratitude to their contributions in your success.
You are our future and hope. It is a big world out there. Go out and seize it. Don’t let anything stop you from pursuing your goals. Like every year, I look forward to seeing you all at your grad events to give you my personal scholarships.
Please join me to wish all the best and great success to all high school and post-secondary students from Vernon-Monashee and from across the province.
OUTSTANDING YOUNG FARMER WINNERS
AND SUPPORT FOR
FARMERS
J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to follow up on the Beef Day comments of my colleague and highlight some exceptional farmers.
This year’s winner of the Outstanding Young Farmers of B.C. and the Yukon are Aubyn and Tristan Banwell of Spray Creek Ranch in Lillooet, where they operate a cow-calf operation direct to consumer.
There must be something in the Sea to Sky pertaining to excellence, because in Pemberton, just on the other side of the Duffey Lake Road, is Kerry McCann of Laughing Crow Organics. They have, for the last 11 years, done a great job growing vegetables, again direct to consumer.
Beyond the many qualities needed to be a finalist as an Outstanding Young Farmer, what is remarkable is that both of these growers have seen success on leased land. Not being in control of your land base is a real risk, especially when it comes to security for financing and long-term investments.
Farming is a capital-intensive business, with skinny margins. If you don’t see it first as a business, you probably won’t be farming for very long. After all, when asked a question about how to make $1 million farming, the cynical farmer’s response is simple: “Start with $2 million.”
And we see this — generations of family farms not seeing a business case for buying the farm, particularly where the farmer can’t afford to just give it to the kids because the farm is often the farmer’s pension. You can imagine it’s even more difficult to think multigenerational when you don’t own the land.
What can we do? Well, what we can do is significantly incentivize non-farmer landowners to ensure that the land is available to farmers on a long-term tenure. We can allow multigenerational farming families housing options beyond the current 90-square-metre allowance in order to raise that second- or third-generation farm family. We can also create a business climate in this province that supports farmers, who, for the most part, compete in a global market on an uneven playing field.
If we don’t pay attention, we risk the loss of family farming as part of our culture. We all understand that food is important to our society, but we should also appreciate that the knowledge and experience it takes to grow that food are also critical.
Yes, let’s preserve the farmland, but let’s also focus on growing some new farmers.
SUPPORT FOR TOURISM IN
OKANAGAN AND
SIMILKAMEEN
R. Russell: I appreciate the opportunity. You’ve all heard me speak in this House about the challenges facing the South Okanagan and Similkameen in their process of navigating fires, floods, freezes, and so on. These cancelled reservations. They sent people away. They devastated crops. The economic and social impacts of this are nearly unfathomable for that area.
Now more than ever these communities, these businesses and the families that rely on them really could use your vacation time in this spectacular part of the world.
I have conversations, for example, with the Polka Dot florist owner last year. She talked about how hard it was when she lost all of her business, even though the skies were clear and the beaches inviting. Similarly, I had the opportunity last weekend to visit Jessie and Sunny at Lasters Orchard. They talked about how not only did they lose most of their peach crop, but they lost half of their peach trees, they expect.
Importantly for you, those peaches are not going to be coming to you here. You have to come to the Okanagan now to get those peaches — the Okanagan and Similkameen.
All across this area, there are all sorts of opportunities, whether it’s wine, whether it’s fruit, whether it’s hiking, lounging, racing carts. This summer is the time that you could come and help support our communities by spending your time there.
There are a number of events in the Similkameen, whether it is the Chopaka Rodeo in July; whether it is Kars under the K in Keremeos; whether it’s Sip and Savour, if farm-to-table opportunities are your thing, at Klippers; or the Similkameen Sizzle Pepper Festival, if you want to see how hot of a pepper you can eat. Many, many opportunities there. The cider festival or the powwow in September.
Similarly, in Princeton, we have the Kettle Valley Rail Trail and bird-watching at Swan Lake — so many opportunities. In Oliver, we have the Wine Capital Weekend in late September, a kick-off party there. Cask and Keg. Festival of the Grape. The Grape Stomp Competition. So many opportunities.
My call for action for you is to come, spend some time and support communities by doing the most fun thing you could imagine, which is enjoying one of the most beautiful parts of this province and delicious food.
LAUREN SIMPSON AND DOWN SYNDROME
COMMUNITY WORK AND
ADVOCACY
T. Halford: Two minutes will not do this local rock star in my riding justice, but I’m going to do my best. I’m going to talk today about my friend Lauren Simpson. Her work has impacted people within the intersection of mental health, disability, seniors and women in poverty. Through her work, she’s had multiple municipal, provincial and federal elected officials talking about her impact.
Lauren recognizes that she comes from a group that needs representation. As a woman and as a person with Down syndrome, Lauren has made strides towards being a change-maker and someone who creates meaningful and lasting impact on her community. She has consulted with hundreds of people to bring housing to our community, including homes for essential workers, teachers, students, seniors, people experiencing poverty and people with disabilities. Lauren is kicking down the old stereotypes that people with disabilities have support done for them, and she is now demonstrating that people with disabilities advocate, and they win.
Lauren has many accomplishments. She attends conferences, meetings, housing forums, committees and other events to speak and educate not only the community but the province on matters towards better support of others. Her work and her dedication are exemplified through her ongoing efforts. Lauren’s interest in affordable housing comes from a community and personal need of affordable, inclusive and accessible housing options for everyone.
In 2023, Lauren was recognized from the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation as someone who is positive representation, who has had a significant impact within their community. In 2023, Lauren was the winner of the YWCA Women of Distinction 2023 category of Community Champion. Most recently — I’m so proud of her — Lauren, in 2024, was winner of the Surrey Board of Trade Women in Business Award in the category of social trailblazer.
I cannot stress enough how this young woman has impacted our community. She is the exemplary definition of what community should be.
Lauren, congratulations on your achievements. We are all so very, very proud of you.
MLA FOR VANCOUVER–WEST END
CONSTITUENCY
SONG
S. Chandra Herbert: I will start by giving apologies to all of you and especially to John Fogerty.
Early in the afternoon, just after lunchtime,
got my
mobile office set up to chat for a while.
Just a little table set up
on Davie Street.
People stop to chat.
It’s how I work my
beat.
Down on the corner, out on Davie Street,
working for the
West End, my friends, in the rain and in the heat.
This constituent
talks health care.
This one talks the rent.
This one tells me
where he thinks the money should be spent.
This one wants to save
the trees.
This one wants human rights.
This constituent tells a
story about her later fights.
Down on the corner, over on Haro
Street,
working for the West End, my friends, in the rain or in the
heat.
Down on the corner, out on Denman Street,
working for the
West End, my friends, in the rain and in the heat.
You don’t need
any money just to hang around.
If you’ve got a good idea, come on
and make a sound.
Down on the corner, it’s open mic for all.
I
look forward to meeting you.
If I don’t see you, give me a
call.
Down on the corner, out on Robson Street,
working for
the West End, my friends, in the rain and in the heat.
It’s the part
of my job I love the very best.
Working for my constituents makes me
feel blessed.
Getting good advice, making some new friends.
Now
my friends, this song must come to an end.
Down on the corner with
my office on the street,
working for the West End, my friends, in
the rain or in the heat.
Oral Questions
CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING
K. Falcon: Seven years ago this NDP government promised to make life more affordable. And 18 months ago, this Premier specifically said we’d have results that people could see, feel and experience in their daily lives.
Well, the results are in, and today we discovered that those promises are nothing more than empty words as we face the highest grocery prices in all of Canada. In fact, just in the last six months, British Columbians are paying $300 more a month for groceries. Stephanie Watts, who is a first responder in Metro Vancouver, says: “It’s exhausting constantly calculating the cost. It’s just not cutting it anymore.”
My question to the Premier is: why is this Premier making the NDP affordability crisis worse for middle-class families like Stephanie’s, with relentless increases in the carbon tax driving up the cost of essentials like groceries?
Hon. J. Osborne: The truth couldn’t be any more different than how the Leader of the Opposition is putting this. Just yesterday we announced a quarter billion dollars to help British Columbians save money on their home heating bills, with rebates to support the installation of heat pumps.
This is a government that understands that things are hard for people right now. With the cost of interest rates, the cost of inflation going up, we need to see more supports for people. That’s what this government is focused on. Whether it’s reducing the fees for transit, for youth, whether it’s adding to the supports that we provide through the B.C. family benefit bonus, whether it’s supporting people to make that transition to clean energy, this government is focused on people each and every single day.
The other government talks about cuts, what would be cut. What would they cut if they were sitting on this side of the House? I think we know. We’ve seen that track record before.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Hon. J. Osborne: We’re going to stay focused on supporting people.
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Well, that answer just symbolizes how totally out of touch this minister and this government have become.
I’ll tell you the first thing we’d cut. We’d cut the 60 percent increase in the food bank lineups that have happened under their watch because of their policies. And remember, it was this NDP Premier who promised tangible results, and all we hear is that kind of empty rhetoric.
Daily life in British Columbia, news flash to the NDP, comes with the highest grocery prices in the country. A simple bag of groceries costing over $73 in Vancouver is 24 percent more expensive than the very same groceries in Calgary. Chicken breasts for the upcoming barbecue season are $26 per kilogram, the highest in the country and double what they cost in Calgary. That’s what people are experiencing every day under this NDP government.
That’s probably why Tyson Southcomb, from Langley, moved to Alberta. He says: “You can’t buy anything, especially people at my age, and it gets harder and harder every day.”
My question is: is the Premier really surprised that once again, under their NDP government, there is a record exodus of young people leaving British Columbia, packing up and moving to Alberta, where our residents here can’t even afford groceries anymore?
Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt people are facing some challenges with global inflation, with interest rates going up. This is a challenge not only being faced in B.C. It’s being faced by people across North America.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I disagree with the member when he talks about people coming to British Columbia. I think it’s important for everybody in this House to note that every 37 days, there are 10,000 net people coming to British Columbia. Every 37 days, 10,000 net. We have not seen this level of migration to British Columbia in the history of this province. People see opportunity here. They see that we have a strong economy — in fact, the strongest economy in the country.
Now, the Leader of the Opposition talks about carbon tax.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate they might not want to hear this, but they should hear this.
I think it’s important to take a trip down memory lane to the evolution of the Leader of the Opposition’s view on carbon tax. In 2008, he said: “We knew the carbon tax wasn’t going to be particularly popular, but I think in politics, at some point, you have to decide whether you’re going to try to do the right thing or do the easy thing.” Okay, that was 2008.
Let’s go to 2012. He said: “I think that if people want to believe climate change is an issue, the warming of the planet is an issue, the only sensible way to deal with that, I believe, is carbon pricing. That’s the only way you’re going to change behaviour.”
The Leader of the Opposition may say: “Well, you know what? That was a long time ago.”
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Last year he said: “If you want people to change behaviour, you have to put a cost to it and ask them to consider shifting their behaviour.” So what has changed between 2008 and 2023?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Clearly, he woke up and saw the poll numbers and saw that the B.C. Conservatives are eating his lunch. That’s a shame, because Gordon Campbell was a leader when it came to addressing climate change, and he’s running that legacy into the ground.
The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.
GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON CARBON TAX
AND FUEL TAX AND
SPENDING PRIORITIES
K. Falcon: Well, sure, I’m happy to engage in this with the minister. Let’s take that trip down memory lane, because in fact, in 2012, when I was the Minister of Finance, I froze the carbon tax at 6.7 cents a litre. We kept it frozen for the next five years, until an unfortunate error allowed them to get back into government.
What did they do? They changed the second part about the carbon tax. That was really unfortunate. Instead of making it revenue-neutral, where every penny went back to British Columbians, they took it all into government and more than doubled it. Now they want to triple it, and they just increased it to 23 percent on April 1. That’s their record.
The fact of the matter is, for individuals like Stephanie and Tyson, they are so far worse off today, after seven years of this NDP promising to make things more affordable. They just tend to forget about the results they actually achieve: highest housing prices in North America, highest fuel prices in North America, highest rents in the entire country and the highest grocery prices in Canada.
Those are actually your results. You have to wear those results as a result of the decisions you make.
The other result I touched on earlier, which is really sad, is that we have seen the lineups at food banks increase by 60 percent. Meanwhile, who are the NDP really helping out? Well, under this Premier, annual payments to management consulting firms have more than doubled, reaching over $220 million last year alone. Since 2018, the NDP has spent $1 billion on consultants.
Now, instead of pouring $1 billion into management consulting firms, this Premier, this NDP government, could have adopted B.C. United’s plan. Eliminate the provincial fuel tax entirely, saving British Columbians 15 cents a litre every time they fill up their car. That would be real, significant savings.
My question to the minister, if he’s going to start taking these, is a really straightforward one. Can you please explain, after increasing the size of your government by 36 percent, why you need to spend a further $1 billion on management consultants to deliver the worst results we’ve ever seen in the country for people like Stephanie and Tyson?
The Speaker: Always through the Chair.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, it’s a real shame to hear the leader of the BCU party, who claimed to be a real champion when it came to addressing climate change and talked about it as the greatest legacy that he was part of, of a previous government. His actual words were: “I am actually very proud of the leadership we have taken with the carbon tax. I think if you accept….”
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Let him talk, please. Members.
The minister has the floor.
Hon. R. Kahlon: He said: “I think that if you accept that climate change is an issue, then pricing carbon is absolutely the right way to deal with it.” What the shame of this whole thing is, is this. Under Gordon Campbell, B.C. started down a path.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Under Gordon Campbell, we started down a path of real climate leadership. What’s a shame about this entire thing is that this leader kicked out the person who didn’t believe in climate change, didn’t even believe it was man-caused, and now is chasing him down a really, really negative place for this province.
The B.C. Conservatives don’t believe climate change is real. What I don’t understand is: do they believe climate change is real or not?
P. Milobar: Wow. The level of this government not wanting to take responsibility for their failed promises and their failures on all sorts of files is shocking.
Let’s be clear. Under us, carbon tax was capped at $30. Emissions were actually going down, and it was revenue neutral. Under this government, it’s climbing to $170 a tonne, and emissions are actually going up worse than anywhere else in Canada. This government doesn’t know how to implement anything.
While the NDP continues to inflate the prices for gas, rent and groceries throughout all these record-setting deficits, with no end in sight, the only people getting richer are insiders and management consultants who are reaping the rewards. Last year alone, the Premier funneled over $220 million into management consulting firms. This includes hefty payouts like $62 million to Deloitte, $42 million to PwC, enormous sums of tax dollars that enrich global corporations under this NDP.
Rather than the $1 billion on management consulting, the Premier should have adopted, actually, B.C. United’s plan to reduce the fuel tax by 15 cents a litre. To the Energy Minister: that’s what we would cut. The provincial fuel tax — full stop. Consulting firms are dining out, while ordinary British Columbians simply can’t afford groceries.
After increasing the size of the government by 36 percent, why has the Premier spent a billion dollars on consultants with no tangible results to show for it?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, down this track of carbon tax, I think the member asked the question. He should just maybe look over his right shoulder to see the member from Abbotsford who said: “I think people — well, the majority of people — had the opportunity to consider the carbon tax in the last election, and found it, on balance, to be a positive and progressive initiative.”
Maybe he can look on the left of him to the member from Prince George, who said: “I think people do want to see environmental leadership in the province.” Obviously, the carbon tax is one of the best things when British Columbia has led.
Maybe he looked left a little further, at his other colleague. When the B.C. Conservative Party was actually talking about getting rid of the carbon tax, he said: “Reducing the carbon tax is a valid thing to say, but you could also explain what services you will cut.”
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. R. Kahlon: He said something. He said: “It’s great you can talk about it, but what services will you cut to make up for that $5 billion shortfall?” I can suggest that the leader of the BCU party here will make cuts, because that’s what he did when he was the Minister of Finance in 2012 — cuts to health care, cuts to services. People in British Columbia cannot afford the cuts that he will bring to British Columbia.
P. Milobar: It’s pretty obvious that the Government House Leader, because they have raised 32 new and increased taxes under their watch, actually can’t even get the right tax that we are talking about. We are talking about provincial fuel tax to the minister, not the carbon tax. The minister doesn’t seem to understand the difference. It is a provincially controlled fuel tax of 15 cents a litre that could be removed today, saving British Columbians $1 billion, instead of spending $1 billion on consultants.
In fact, the Premier’s office is already jam packed with special advisers, yet they are still squandering on another $1 billion to get other consultants’ advice. I don’t even know what this cabinet does, with all the shadow cabinet’s work going on in the Premier’s office.
Yet as these consultants cash in, British Columbians suffer the worst results ever. Under this government’s watch, housing affordability is worst in North America. Grocery prices have skyrocketed 30 percent. Wait times at walk-in clinics are now the longest in Canada. We’re sending patients for cancer treatment down to private hospitals, down in Bellingham.
B.C. United would instead spend that $1 billion on cutting the fuel tax by 15 cents a litre and give people an actual break when they go to the pumps.
Why has the NDP poured $1 billion into high-priced consultants, instead of delivering actual, tangible cuts for people that would impact their daily lives, trying to get around for work and for pleasure and leisure, especially going into the summer season?
Hon. K. Conroy: I think we can all agree in this House that global inflation and rising interest rates have caused grocery prices to go up and made things expensive — right across the country, actually. We knew that. So for Budget ’24, we made things more affordable for people by taking action at the root causes.
We’re putting hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, back into people’s pockets in this province so that they can deal with the affordability of groceries and can deal with things like child care. We are giving $500 more to families on the Family Bonus, something they’ve never done. We’re giving people breaks on their electricity. We’re giving breaks on ICBC.
Let’s remind everybody what the current leader of the BCUP did. He hiked ICBC rates by 11 percent. They also hiked MSP. They used MSP as their own little bank account. They put tolls on bridges….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Members, hold it.
Minister will continue.
Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
They don’t like to hear about these facts, but he gave tax breaks to the biggest corporations in the province, where we’ve actually made them pay taxes, because we know how incredibly important it is. And they….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Hon. K. Conroy: One of the other things they don’t like to talk about is that since we came into government, over 120,000 women have returned to the workforce. A lot of them would say it’s directly attributable to our child care program, something that they actually cut when they came into government in 2001.
I just could go on and on. I just want to say that I know this government is committed to people in this province. We’re committed to making sure we’re not going to raise their taxes, and we’re not going to make cuts to services.
PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS
AND LOGGING
DEFERRALS
A. Olsen: For years, this government has talked in circles around the important issue of protecting old-growth forests. This is more of “what he says, and what he does.”
In his first 100 days, the Premier committed to protecting old growth and prioritizing biodiversity and ecosystem health, yet another legislative session has come and gone without any nod to old-growth forests.
The old-growth strategic review was very clear on what is needed to protect the high-productivity old-growth forests. British Columbians have also been loud and clear: 92 percent of the population want some protection for old-growth trees. Meanwhile, big trees continue to fall under this government, making the province more susceptible to climate change and biodiversity loss.
To the Premier, after four years of promises and commitments to protecting old growth, where are we now?
Hon. G. Heyman: B.C., under this government, has taken more concrete steps to protect old-growth forests and ecosystems in general than we have ever seen in British Columbia.
There were many shortsighted approaches in the past, decisions to boost raw log exports that led us to the challenges we’re facing today.
We’re working in partnership with First Nations, with communities, with people in the sector. We are conserving more ancient forests for our children and grandchildren, and supporting a transition to more sustainable forestry jobs for workers and communities. We’re implementing the recommendations of the old-growth strategic review. We launched a $300 million First Nations conservation fund, in partnership with the B.C. Parks Foundation, to help protect more rare forests.
On that announcement, Ken Wu, the executive director of the Endangered Ecosystems Alliance, said: “Premier Eby has delivered. This is a huge conservation victory for the many thousands of people who’ve spoken up for years for this.”
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
A. Olsen: Forests in our province are burning. We get the Minister of Environment standing up and answering on forestry questions — the same Minister of Environment that failed to bring in species-at-risk legislation, the same Environment Minister that failed to bring in biodiversity legislation for the last seven years that he has been the Environment Minister.
Old-growth forests are crucial habitat for many plants and animals, including the spotted owl and mountain caribou. They’re culturally significant for many First Nations, which harvest food and medicines from forests that we’ve stewarded for millennia. They’re a major draw for tourists, who come from all over the world to marvel at these towering trees and their magnificence.
Decades of industrial logging have taken an immense toll on the ecosystems and communities, and this government’s response is rhetoric. More trees are falling. In fact, the volume of old growth cut increased in recent years. Indigenous leaders and conservation groups are demanding the government protect more old-growth trees. In the words of Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: “At this rate, there will be nothing left for our children. Stop putting profit and votes over people…. Stop logging our old-growth trees.”
My question is again to the Premier or the Minister of Forests. When will his government fully fund the deferral process and provide compensation to First Nations that lose revenue as a result of the deferrals?
Hon. G. Heyman: The member is simply incorrect. This government has taken more action on a number of fronts to protect old-growth forests, biodiversity, ecosystems and endangered species than we’ve seen in British Columbia.
We formed partnership agreements to protect the southern mountain caribou with nations in the northeast of the province and with the federal government. We took measures to protect spotted owls, including the captive breeding program. We have a process in place where we are systematically working with First Nations to protect ancient trees, ancient forests, irreplaceable old growth.
Yes, we are also supporting a healthy logging industry. We are working to conserve ecosystems. We are putting ecosystem health at the centre of the Forest Act, which was never the practice before. Along with the federal government and private sector partners, we have established $1 billion for conservation of ecosystems, species and irreplaceable old-growth forests in this province. We’ll continue our work. I just wish the member were paying attention.
WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT
J. Rustad: Here we are again with forest fires raging in this province of British Columbia. You would think that after years, they would have learned some lessons. Up in Fort Nelson, when the fire started up, there were crews there ready to go. As a matter of fact, Terry, the president of Fire and Flood, tells me his team was ready to attack the fire when it was just a minor issue.
This NDP government chose to sit on its hands and not deploy these crews. They just let it burn and burn. Now, of course, the crew that was there has already left for Alberta. They’ve got other things they’re doing in Alberta.
The real question is to the Premier. Why were all the resources not applied that were available? Why were crews that were there ready to put out that fire not made available, not put in there and let that fire actually build to the place now where we have a potential serious disaster on our hands?
Hon. B. Ma: What is happening to the community up in Fort Nelson…. I know all our hearts and thoughts are with them. Nearly 5,000 people have been evacuated over the last several days, and we’re incredibly grateful to the host communities that have accepted them: Prince George, Fort St. John, Chetwynd and Dawson Creek as well.
We’re incredibly grateful for the B.C. Wildfire Service responders and the local fire departments who are continuing to fight the fire right now.
We’re actually quite fortunate that we had so many resources up there in Fort Nelson, in the North, so early on in the year. Largely, they were staging up because of the holdover fires up north.
The Parker Lake fire was not a holdover fire; it was a new fire. We were able to divert those resources, up north, directly to the Parker Lake fire to hold it back immediately. We are continuing to deploy resources up there in the days ahead, and I know that we’re all hoping for the best for that community.
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
J. Rustad: The challenge here is that the initial attack was not done properly. We did not pull the resources in. When you’ve got a company like Fire and Flood Emergency Service, which has cutting-edge equipment, cutting-edge water delivery systems to be able to attack fires, that is not being deployed…. That, quite frankly, is just incompetence.
It’s a pattern that has happened year after year after year by this government. As a matter of fact, this very same company was sitting in Kamloops, ready to be deployed last year on fires in Kelowna, being paid $40,000 a day and not being deployed, not even being asked to go to work, just being paid to sit there. This government has once again ignored the reality of getting crews in quickly. Private sector crews, local crews — getting them in to attack the fires.
The question once again to the Premier is this. When will this government actually learn lessons from what mistakes have been made in past years; when will they learn that they need to get their crews in there quickly? They need to use locals to be able to attack these things so that we’re not in a situation where we have to evacuate a community like Fort Nelson.
Hon. B. Ma: I reject the characterization being put forward by the Leader of the Fourth Party. B.C. Wildfire Service crews were in the area. They were in Fort Nelson, and they were able to deploy very quickly.
We have substantial resources in the area. We have air tankers. We have helicopters, aerial resources. We’ve got ground crews with heavy equipment. They are doing their utmost. I’m incredibly grateful to the servicemen and women of the B.C. Wildfire Service and the firefighters, the local fire departments, who are in the area right now deploying structural protection to save the community.
COST OF LIVING AND AFFORDABILITY
ISSUES AND GOVERNMENT
PRIORITIES
T. Stone: Seven years ago the NDP made affordability their signature election promise. They did it again in the election four years ago. And 18 months ago the Premier promised British Columbians, when it comes to affordability, they would be able to feel and see and experience results on that front.
For many British Columbians like Lesley, who’s a senior, who’s on the brink of homelessness, these NDP promises ring hollow. She describes her reality: “I never buy meat anymore. I live on salad and cottage cheese. The price of groceries is ridiculous.”
The NDP promises also ring hollow for Glenna, who is grappling with soaring grocery bills. She says: “It’s insane. I’m a single mom of a two-year-old, and my weekly grocery bill is hundreds of dollars more today than it used to be. I come home with a box of diapers and wipes and food for my toddler while I eat frozen dinners. It’s absolutely ridiculous.” While Glenna is forced to live on frozen dinners just to make ends meet, management consultants dine out on $1 billion from this NDP government.
B.C. United will remove the carbon tax on farm protection, and we will eliminate the fuel tax of up to 15 cents per litre. All of which will help to lower the cost of groceries.
My question to the Premier is this: why is the Premier wasting millions of dollars on a jam-packed Premier’s office and $1 billion on consultants instead of adopting B.C. United’s practical solutions, which would give people like Lesley and Glenna the break that they deserve and that they need when it comes to grocery costs?
Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt the challenges that are being faced with global inflation and high interest rates are having a disproportionate impact on seniors. One of the biggest pressures that seniors are facing in communities across British Columbia, across the country, is the cost of housing. Housing is central to the challenges seniors are facing, whether I talk with the seniors advocate or different seniors organizations.
That’s why we have the largest investment in affordable housing for seniors and for other people who are struggling in our communities in history. One of the largest in the province’s history. In fact, the largest in the country.
We know that for two decades, there were not enough investments being made in affordable housing. We’ve dramatically increased that. That’s why we also expanded SAFER, to ensure that more seniors had access to those dollars.
We know this is important. We respect that people who’ve worked their entire lives and contributed so much need to have those supports. We’re committed to continue to support them during these challenging times.
R. Merrifield: Housing? The minister stands up and brags about housing in B.C. We have the highest cost of housing in North America, highest rents in the country, and he’s bragging about those results.
Look, news flash to this NDP government. Across B.C., people are struggling to make ends meet. This is the reality for Anita Lau. “It’s spend less, eat less, socialize less. We just try to survive.”
B.C. United has a plan to cut the cost of living, scrap the carbon tax on home heating, eliminate the fuel tax and actually restore the dream of home ownership by reducing taxes and doing a rent-to-own plan. Meanwhile, this NDP’s lack of plan involves wasting $1 billion on management consultants while bragging about their housing strategies. This is exactly why Anita and countless others don’t see any relief from this government, this Premier or that minister.
How much longer will the Premier ignore the cries for help from people like Anita, continuing to funnel funds to consultants rather than supporting those who desperately need relief?
Hon. K. Conroy: We know that our population is aging in B.C., so we have taken action to support seniors and give them the support they need to live vibrant and independent lives.
We’re helping more seniors stay in their own homes longer. We’ve put in $354 million over three years to strengthen home and community care for seniors. I have never met a senior who said: “I just can’t wait to get into the seniors facility.” They want to stay in their own home. So we want to give them the support to make sure they can stay in their own homes longer.
We’ve also given more access to home support workers, health care workers, people like physiotherapists and occupational therapists who are helping seniors stay mobile and stay in their homes — and more help with day-to-day activities like grocery shopping, rides to appointments, making sure seniors get those supports.
We’re actually building more seniors facilities as well, in many communities like Abbotsford, Richmond and Nanaimo. And we’re helping seniors with costs. They’re also getting the electricity affordability credit. They’re getting the climate action tax credit boost and the new renters tax credit. For those that are still driving, they’re getting flat rates on ICBC, which they will continue to get.
We want to make sure that we’re supporting people. It doesn’t matter whether they’re young people, middle income or seniors. We want to make sure that we have those affordability credits in place for people, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do in this province.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
Hon. M. Dean: I rise to present a petition from areas in Metchosin requesting that the House create a mentorship program that allows people interested in learning more about MLAs and the provincial legislative process to shadow an MLA in their work.
The program would work by people applying. Their application would get reviewed, and then they would be paired with an MLA with similar interests and background. People in the program would get to go to the Legislature and see what an MLA does and what it’s like to be an MLA. That would lead to more diverse perspectives in the political process.
Hon. N. Cullen: I seek leave to table reports.
Leave granted.
Tabling Documents
Hon. N. Cullen: I have the honour to present the provincial health officer’s report Clean, Safe and Reliable Drinking Water: An Update on Drinking Water Protection in BC, 2017-18–2021-22.
Reports from Committees
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
P. Milobar: I am pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fifth session of the 42nd parliament titled Summary of Activities 2023-24.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
P. Milobar: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
P. Milobar: In moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make some brief comments, if I may.
The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts reviews the reports of the Office of the Auditor General, engaging in important discussions and providing a public forum for the scrutiny of the economy, effectiveness and efficiency of government programs and services.
This report summarizes the committee’s work from April 1, 2023, to April 3, 2024, including its examination of five performance audit and information reports on government’s administration of a variety of program areas. The committee also reviewed the Auditor General’s reports on the financial audit work for fiscal year ’22-23 and approved the financial statement audit coverage plan for the auditing of provincial summary financial statements over the next three years.
On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank the Auditor General, Michael Pickup, and his staff for the important work that they do.
I’d also like to thank Carl Fischer. He had dedicated many, many years of service as a comptroller general for B.C. and has now retired, but he made many appearances before the committee.
The committee looks forward to continuing to work with the new comptroller general, Nicole Wright.
I would also like to express my appreciation to all committee members — including the Deputy Chair, the member for North Coast — for their hard work and dedication. It’s a lot of meetings packed into evenings while we’re in sitting. It makes for long days, but they do great work.
J. Rice: I, too, would like to acknowledge all committee members — including the Chair, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — for their contributions to this committee.
Over the course of the year, the committee considered reports on a wide range of program areas, including diversity and inclusion, fraud risk management and cybersecurity. This year the committee also reviewed the Office of the Auditor General’s first annual follow-up report on performance audit recommendations made in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
In undertaking this work, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts helps to promote public sector oversight and accountability in British Columbia.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Office of the Auditor General, the office of the comptroller general and the numerous senior public servants who took the time to appear before the committee.
Finally, I would also like to extend a thank-you to the staff from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services who have helped the committee in its work.
Thank you to all who contributed.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the chamber, I call second reading of Bill 26, Name Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.
In the Birch Committee Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, followed by the estimates of the Legislative Assembly and Officers of the Legislature.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 26 — NAME
AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 2), 2024
Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 26, the Name Amendment Act (No. 2), be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak about some important amendments to the Name Act that were introduced yesterday in this House.
This bill will prevent convicted criminals and individuals who have caused serious harm to others from evading accountability and avoiding the negative consequence of their actions by legally changing their names. Specifically, the amendments would prohibit a legal name change by persons who have been convicted of prescribed offences, are declared a dangerous or long-term offender or are found not criminally responsible for a prescribed offence due to a mental disorder.
To support this prohibition on legal name changes for offenders, the bill will amend the Name Act to enable the Vital Statistics Agency to request, receive and review the results of criminal record checks for applicants who seek to change their names and will provide additional regulation-making authorities so that offences can be prescribed for purposes of the new prohibition.
Currently the Vital Statistics Agency issues vital event and name change certificates and administers the Name Act, which sets out procedures for legal changes of a person’s name, including conditions of eligibility, the process for applying for a legal change of name and the related duties and responsibilities of the registrar general.
Currently the act describes persons who are entitled to change their name and establishes eligibility criteria, including residency and age requirements as well as consent requirements in the case of minors.
The act currently does not identify any persons who are prohibited from making a legal name change. Therefore, individuals who have been convicted of offences that have caused serious harm to others and individuals found not criminally responsible for those offences are not barred from applying for a name change.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Under the current act, individuals who are eligible to make a legal name change for themselves or their minor child between the ages of 18 and 19 are required to initiate a criminal records check within a 30-day period before filing a name change application. However, under the current act, the registrar general does not receive the results of a criminal record check, and information about an applicant’s criminal record does not enter into the decision of whether to grant a name change. That is one of the things we are changing, together, in this act.
In addition, there’s nothing currently in the act that would specifically prohibit a name change being granted to persons with a criminal record or individuals found not criminally responsible for serious offences. Once a name change for one of these individuals is registered by the registrar general, the registrar general issues a name change, change of name or certificate to the applicant, which can then be used for purposes of changing their identification, such as drivers’ licences.
This bill would amend the Name Act so that a person who has been convicted of a prescribed offence, declared to be a dangerous or long-term offender or found not criminally responsible for a prescribed offence due to a mental disorder will be prohibited from making a legal name change.
For the purpose of this name change prohibition, the offences will be identified by regulation. They will include Criminal Code of Canada offences that are dangerous and cause significant harm to others, such as homicide or aggravated sexual assault and offences that target children.
It’s important to note that the new prohibition would apply to a person making a change-of-name application on their own behalf, as well as to a person on behalf of whom someone is making a name change application — for example, a minor on whose behalf a parent with custody or guardianship is making an application.
The name change prohibition will apply to adult offenders, those 18 and under, as well as young people who have not reached the age of 18 who are convicted of prescribed offences and sentenced as adults. Under federal legislation, as members will know, in certain circumstances, prosecutors can seek an adult sentence when a young person is found guilty of a serious violent offence such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.
With respect to the circumstances of young persons under the age of 18 who have a youth sentence rather than an adult sentence imposed, the amendments have been drafted to allow for deferred application of the new provisions.
In order to allow the registrar general to receive and review the criminal record of an applicant, the amendments will require an applicant to file with the registrar general the results of a criminal record check or an authorization for the registrar general to carry out a criminal record check or verify the results of a criminal record check for purposes of the new prohibition. Details relating to the required criminal record check process will be prescribed by regulation.
Lastly, the bill includes consequential amendments to the Adoption Act and Vital Statistics Act to ensure alignment of name change processes with the new criminal record check requirements and prohibitions for offenders in the Name Act.
In my view, and I hope and I believe the view of this House, allowing dangerous offenders to hide their identity through a legal name change is extremely troubling to victims and their family and can result in safety concerns for members of the public. This legislation will prevent dangerous offenders from evading accountability and avoiding the negative consequences of their actions by legally changing their names.
I appreciate, and I say this to all members of this House, that this bill was introduced late in the session. It’s a bill that we’ve worked and ensured that all opposition parties have been briefed on, and I appreciate their participation and involvement in those briefings. I think it’s an important step for us to take together to ensure that everybody is safe.
We have made changes, over time, in the way that we deal with change of names, and they are important for many people in our communities. The Name Act, while it is not regularly debated in this Legislature, is important to a lot of people.
This change, I think, is an important change that not only reflects community values but reflects a commonsense approach to how we deal and protect and support those people who are victims of crime and the broader public safety of the community.
We have acted, I think…. I want to express my appreciation to our staff teams who have acted, I think, effectively and expeditiously on this question.
I just want to say, finally, that we know of specific cases these issues apply to. We know there are often, and this is the reason we have debates in this House, unintended consequences of actions. In 2011, we made a change in the way that we make public a change of name. It was done for many, many good reasons. It was done by the Ministry of Health and the registrar general at the time. What it meant was that there was not publication of name changes. That had positive and negative effects, but I would say principally positive effects. It continued to be the policy after that time.
The changes we are making today are pretty clear. If you commit a prescribed offence, a serious offence of violence against another person, a crime against children, you don’t get to change your name. You don’t get to make a legal name change. I think that’s the right approach, and I ask all members of this House to support it.
K. Falcon: Just for the benefit of the viewing public here, I want to tell a little bit of a story about legislation and how it works through the system here. But I want to emphasize right from the outset that I stand here very proudly supporting the minister’s introduction of Bill 26, the Name Amendment Act.
Having been in government myself, having been a Minister of Finance, Minister of Transportation, Minister of Health, Minister of Deregulation, I know that not all the best ideas come from government. Sometimes that’s hard when you’re in government, because you assume that you got elected for that reason, therefore all the fount of knowledge must come from the government side of the benches.
This introduction, this bill, I think, is a real expression of sincerity on the part of government to recognize that sometimes, occasionally even the opposition may have good ideas that are worthy of being introduced in a bill that bring forward a change that benefits all British Columbians. I think this is a very good example of that.
I want to give the public a little bit of an understanding about why we are talking about something that sounds very boring, like the Name Amendment Act. Well, it’s because there was a bit of a public uproar when the public learned that there’s an individual out there that is, unfortunately, well known, Allan Schoenborn, who had applied to change his name.
Mr. Schoenborn is a particularly egregious offender who murdered his own children and caused a huge amount of alarm in the community when they learned that not only is he applying to be released from his current incarceration but that he had in fact changed his name three years ago, back in May of 2021.
As a result of that, I as the Leader of the Official Opposition introduced a private member’s bill on the Name Amendment Act to close forever this ability of those that have committed serious offences or could commit serious offences from being able to use the Name Act to allow them to potentially show up in some other community, avoiding accountability because the people would not be aware that they have someone potentially very dangerous perhaps even as a neighbour.
I want to commend the minister for bringing forward a bill which I think, frankly, improved even on the bill that I had introduced as a private member’s bill. Again, another example of where the government looks at a piece of legislation and brings together the professional staff and the drafters to say: “Look, here are some other areas that we can look at.”
The minister touched on many of those, so I don’t want to be repetitive at all. But the section where even those found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, of which Alan Schoenborn would be a very good example, would be included in this….
Including those young offenders who may have been charged, have not yet reached the age of 18 but have been convicted of serious prescribed offences and sentenced as adults…. The tragic situation here on Vancouver Island of Kelly Ellard, I think was the name, comes to mind. So it captures those sorts of situations and protects the public, as the public should be protected, from something like this.
I do want to say thank you to the government for recognizing and bringing forward what is a very important bill, Bill 26, the Name Amendment Act. I thank them for taking a suggestion, if I could be so modest, from the opposition that this is important enough that we should put it through.
While we’re very late in the session, it’s certainly something that the official opposition is proud to stand up and support.
S. Bond: I, too, want to stand in this place today and just reflect on a couple of things. I’d like to begin by talking a bit about the process, as our leader has already referred to.
I want to begin by thanking the minister and his staff in particular for very quickly providing a briefing to the members of the opposition. That is an important part of understanding, especially at this time in our legislative session.
I especially want to recognize Theresa, in the minister’s office, who works so constructively with all of us — I’m very grateful for that — on a regular basis and very grateful for the briefing being provided.
I did want to just take a moment today to talk a little bit about the process that we’re going through here today, because it does matter. It is really about…. There’s been a lot of talk about how we better utilize this chamber, this place. From my perspective, and our leader captured it so very well, good ideas don’t come from one side of this House. People are elected to come here and bring ideas and thoughts about the kinds of changes that need to be made in British Columbia. I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to, in essence, have the courage and will to say: “That is a good idea.”
This morning my colleague, for example, brought a private member’s bill that talks about land titles in British Columbia. We’ve spent days in this Legislature talking about anti-racism, yet here we stand, I think — I don’t know how many times — for about the third time. We are talking about eradicating discriminatory clauses based on your race, ancestry or place of origin. My answer to that is: just do it. So many other poignant bills brought by other members of the House over the last number of weeks….
Today we see a bill where a private member’s bill was tabled. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition bring a private member’s bill; the public spoke up. Here today we see that government has now responded. As our leader pointed out, we are generally…. We are supportive of this bill. I, obviously, will have a few questions for the minister at committee stage. He and I are very familiar with that process and actually work through those in a constructive way.
But before we talk about the content of the bill, I do want to say, as a long-time legislator, it is sad that we do not do this more often. It is absolutely our responsibility. In fact, I would point out to the minister that in cabinet ministers’ mandate letters, they are told to work with people across the aisle, across all of the parties in this Legislature.
I just, on a personal note, want to reflect on the relationship that I have with the Minister of Health. I would suggest that he is an example…. Not always. We’re still working on defibrillators in British Columbia. I’m going to continue to raise that issue. But I can honestly say that this is a minister who is willing to have a dialogue with us and say: “Let’s find a way to get there.” I have said that publicly before, and I’m saying that again today. I think that is reflected in the work that we’re doing here this morning.
I should also point out that we are late in the legislative session to be introducing two bills when we have substantive legislation in front of us. So it’s not our intent to make this a lengthy process. But it is important that with every bill that’s presented in this Legislature, MLAs have the opportunity to reflect and provide feedback and, at times, scrutiny of bills that are placed. We’re certainly seeing that in some of the much larger bills that are in front the House as we speak.
Reflecting on the process is important, and I hope that future governments look at ways to actually embrace ideas that make sense for British Columbians no matter where they come from in this chamber. That matters to me a great deal. It’s hard for governments to do that. It was hard for our government; it is hard for this one. But today is about making sure we move forward with something that is essential.
This bill, when we think about how…. The minister and I have debated many bills, some that had over 600 clauses. This one only has a few, comparatively speaking. But it brings a great deal…. It is a very important bill.
What it does, for people who may not know…. When we’re talking about a bill that’s called the Name Amendment Act, it could mean a lot of things. This bill will ensure that if people in British Columbia commit horrific crimes, they will not be able to hide from their past. And that’s what this is about. It supports survivors, especially survivors of violent crimes and their families.
Imagine having your life altered forever by someone, and if that isn’t enough trauma, the perpetrator gets to inflict further trauma. How? By changing their name. How on earth is that fair to families in British Columbia? The bill today will ensure that that does not happen again in our province. In essence, what practice has allowed is a perpetrator to hide, to blend in.
I did want the minister to also…. Yesterday, when we were talking about where this happens elsewhere…. British Columbia now joins other jurisdictions. I think that’s really important to note because other provinces have already advanced legislation — in provinces like Saskatchewan, in provinces like Alberta. Recently there has been a bill tabled in Manitoba.
I do want to say that it is important to note that this bill does bring an additional provision, one that is not in place in other parts of the country, and I am very grateful for that. By including the particular situation where a person is found not responsible due to reasons of mental illness, mental capacity — that does not exist in other jurisdictions. That would effectively capture the person who many of us have on our minds this morning, Allan Schoenborn.
When we think about Saskatchewan…. They moved ahead in 2020. Alberta then followed as well. Alberta and Saskatchewan currently have jurisdiction in place. When I was doing my homework, one of the things that a minister said in Alberta, for example, was that this is a Canadian issue. It is not just a British Columbia issue, because there is nothing to stop a person from leaving one jurisdiction, going to another jurisdiction and getting their name changed. The work has to continue.
I do recognize and acknowledge government’s ministers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, who, as far back as 2020, actually looked at this type of legislation. Again, they do not include the specific clause that talks about being not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder.
The minister reflected on that with me yesterday about how important that was. It does differentiate British Columbia from other jurisdictions across the country. I think that we certainly agree with that perspective and that position.
It is incredibly important legislation. I think what all of us want to reflect on today is, while it certainly closes what many would consider a loophole, think about what it means for survivors and families who live with trauma forever.
Let us reflect for a moment on Allan Schoenborn. He was guilty of three counts of first-degree murder. He murdered his children. They were five, eight and ten years old. Allan Schoenborn was able to apply to have his name changed and, in fact, was successful. I want to say to the House and to British Columbians today: he will always be known as Allan Dwayne Schoenborn, despite the fact that he was granted the ability to use a new name. That name is Ken John Johnson.
One of the questions we’re going to talk about when we go through committee is…. Obviously, there’s not a provision and probably not the possibility of retroactivity, but this is not acceptable. The minister in his remarks, which I appreciated very much today, made it clear that he understands the pain and the suffering that families have gone through, now only to find that a person who murdered his own children has the ability to change his name with the hope of blending in, of hiding his past.
That is absolutely not acceptable in British Columbia or anywhere else, for that matter. We know and we agree with the minister that if you are a dangerous offender or a perpetrator of horrific crimes in British Columbia, you will from now on be forced to live with your name. That is part of the consequence for behaviour that is as heinous as that committed by Allan Dwayne Schoenborn.
As we go through the bill, we will talk a little bit about the content. I think it’s important to reflect also on the fact…. The minister very correctly described the bill in the House today. There will also be an opportunity for young offenders…. If they are charged and convicted as adults, they will also be precluded from having their names changed. Again, I think that reflects a very horrific thing that happened in the past.
I think my sadness today is only that we can’t go back. Those are questions we’ll explore in committee. But what we can do is send a message to families today in British Columbia. We hope, more than anything, that these circumstances never happen in our province. I think all of us remember the images of those days when Allan Schoenborn committed three murders — but not only that, caused fear and terror. I remember the images of the manhunt, basically, that took place.
Today, together in this Legislature and over the course of the process that moves us to approval of this bill, we are doing a good thing and the right thing in the Legislature today. No matter where the bill came from, no matter who brought it to the table, the fact of the matter is that today is a good and important day.
I would just urge members in this chamber, especially those who hope to be back in this place, that we have a responsibility to think about how we do things here. When you have private members’ bills that could improve the quality of life for people in this province, we need to set aside partisan political differences and put British Columbians at the front of our agenda.
I thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. The official opposition will be voting in favour. We will obviously be working our way through committee. I think we may have another colleague or two who would like to speak to this bill. With that, I am very grateful for the time. I am grateful for the discussion with the minister yesterday and also his remarks in the chamber this morning.
M. Morris: I, as well, was pretty happy to see this bill come before the House. I applaud our leader for bringing this forward not too long ago as well and that government has acted on this.
As a former police officer of a number of years — I spent 32 years in policing — I’ve seen a number of very hardened, heinous criminals take advantage of this and change their name to try and escape these terrible crimes that they’ve committed on people in our country and elsewhere as well.
Our justice system is…. The rule of law is paramount in Canada, and it’s upheld very stringently by the court system that we have. But oftentimes, the public feels a little bit let down, and the victims of crime feel let down, when they see the accused people receiving sentences that are far less than what the public think it should be. The victims in particular relive these horrendous situations for the rest of their lives.
When somebody can go and change their name to drift into obscurity and disappear from the wrath of the public for committing such a terrible offence against humanity and people, that’s something that needed to be addressed.
I applaud the government and the minister for bringing this forward, because it does address this. It does block a couple of loopholes in there for dealing with young offenders who have been tried as adults and convicted and those that have demonstrated that they didn’t have the mental capacity to form the intent to commit those criminal offences at that particular time, as this particular case has noted. I really applaud the minister for that, and I applaud government for bringing it forward.
It’s a very tight, tight timeline on this. I haven’t seen this much before, where a bill is presented only moments before the session is ended for the year and for this particular government as well. Again, this is something that I think all my colleagues support.
I hope we’ll see this go through the process fairly quickly and be approved so that the victims of crime can rest assured that this will never happen again.
E. Sturko: I, too, rise very supportive of Bill 26. I do also want to thank the minister, but also to congratulate our leader. I think that this is an example of a good idea coming forward and being accepted on both sides of the floor.
Like my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, I was a police officer before. I have worked on investigations as well with very bad things that have happened. This is a bill that’s not only about preventing people from escaping their responsibility, but it goes far towards helping to protect the community, to protect people from those who, whether it’s as a result of their actions they’ve planned or as a result of actions that they are deemed to be not criminally responsible for due to a mental defect…. That the public can know the identity of these individuals.
Especially now, when we have things like all these dating apps, when we have opportunities to actually do some personal background checking on individuals before taking personal risks, it’s important for people to have access to things like knowledge about a person’s identity. Certainly, I feel very appreciative of and some comfort, actually, in knowing we’ve seen, over the last couple of years, some very dramatic crimes that have taken place where, certainly, public awareness has actually been paramount in ensuring safety.
I also agree with the member from Prince George who talked about the impact that the murder of the three children had on British Columbia. I can still remember the manhunt as well. Even in recent days, seeing the public was made aware of that man’s attempts to have his conditions changed to go out in the public and the outburst that that individual had then in that hearing, it’s frightening to think that someone who was deemed not criminally responsible then, ultimately, has shown very little in terms of actually coming to terms with what he’s done, would be allowed to change his identity.
I think this is a good bill that really goes towards providing some comfort to British Columbians. I’m pleased that the government embraced our bill and introduced their own bill. Of course, we’re going to support the passage of the Name Amendment Act, which addresses a critical loophole. Again, I’m proud that our leader, Kevin Falcon, introduced his bill last month to close this loophole. I want to commend the government’s decision to move forward on this important issue and follow B.C. United’s lead on our advocacy on this element of commonsense public safety.
We’re glad to see that the government is finally taking some of the necessary steps to address this problem because a timely intervention is crucial in preventing further misuse of the name change process. The legislation will prevent further abuses of the name change process. As I said, it will enhance public safety and confidence in the justice system.
I look forward to further debate as this moves through the legislative process but want to say that I’m glad that the NDP has bowed to some of the pressure here and done the right thing to close this glaring loophole.
Deputy Speaker: House Leader, Third Party.
A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you like me to reserve…?
Deputy Speaker: At this stage, if you want to make extensive remarks, probably best to do that, because I think we’ve got about five minutes.
A. Olsen: Okay. I’ll just reserve my spot and note the hour.
A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
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 will be adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. Thank you, Members.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 25; N. Simons in the chair.
The committee met at 11:28 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I’m going to call Committee of the Whole, Section A, to order. We are working on Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.
On clause 2 (continued).
M. Lee: I wanted to come back to two points that were made in committee yesterday.
At the time I said to the minister, when the minister mentioned what the Premier has said…. We had that exchange about what the Premier has said in terms of the…. The quote that the Premier had said in one context was that “the stars are aligned in this moment, and if we can, on both sides, demonstrate that this is successful, then I think it makes it more possible to do it in other places in British Columbia and also in Canada, because it’ll provide a bit of a template for everybody about what the world of the possible is.”
The minister, of course, yesterday emphasized the words about the world of the possible. We’ve had several exchanges about that. I would note that in the lead-up to that quote that the minister is referring to, the Premier does say: “I think it makes it more possible to do it in other places in British Columbia and also in Canada because it’ll provide a bit of a template.”
The statement, though, in addition…. There the Premier did use the word “template.” He used it again in the context, in effect, in the interview with Justine Hunter back on April 15. The lead-in says, as I quoted before: “Mr. Eby called the agreement historic and said it offers a new model for resolving Aboriginal land claims.”
She goes on for a direct quote from the Premier. “This agreement won’t only raise all boats here in Haida Gwaii — increase opportunity and prosperity for the Haida people and for the whole community and for the whole province — but it will also be an example and another way for nations not just in British Columbia but right across Canada to have their title recognized.”
We have the words “new model,” “example,” “template.” This is the reason why we continue to spend the time we spent, as the minister well knows, about what this is and the clarity that we want to have in Bill 25.
I would also just comment on the minister’s last response to me about: why isn’t it that we just don’t have, in the bill, fee simple interest on lands excluded from what is being recognized on Haida title? Given the fact that the Haida Nation…. In ways that the minister has described, both pointing to the agreement as well as the consent confirmations, both in the agreement and the bill itself, effectively, that the Haida Nation is confirming and consenting that the estates in fee simple continue and are confirmed….
The minister, in his second response to me, talked about the fact that…. Well, the thing is that fee simple lands were included in the Haida submissions and their claim before the courts. If we followed the drafting style or approach that I am suggesting or asking about, then it would be back in front of the courts.
The minister said: “Ironically, if one were to take the position that the member suggests, I do think it’s a suggestion made in good faith, and I appreciate it. Had that approach been taken, I hope the member would realize that we would then have fee simple still before the courts.”
The whole positioning, though, of course, of what the Haida Nation and the government has been negotiating and trying to get to is an agreement. What the bill does, as well, is demonstrate the agreement between the Haida Nation and the province of British Columbia.
What I’m asking about is clarity and certainty that currently, right now, the questions that we’ve raised and had discussions about at length — in terms of the opportunity for or the coexistence of Aboriginal title with fee simple interests as being an unsettled area of the law — the province and the Haida Nation are making it very clear by agreement, and that’s what the minister has said.
Well, the Haida Nation has also made it very clear in the words that the minister has read out that they consent to that fee simple interest continuing undisturbed in a way that suggests that it’s protected in perpetuity, in the words that the minister used.
So if that’s the case, then why not just separate fee simple interests from the actual definition of Haida title here, given that it is protected in perpetuity?
There’s an agreement about recognizing fee simple interest. In fact, in the bill itself, in clause 4.3, it says: “The following interests in and rights in relation to the land on Haida Gwaii, whether arising before or after this section comes into force, are confirmed and continued: (a) an estate of fee simple; (b) an interest in or right in relation to land that derives from burdens or otherwise relates to an estate in fee simple.”
That is confirmed in the bill itself. All I’m asking about is why, in the definition of Haida title in sub 4.1(1), the recognition of that as described in the schedule of the act, fee simple interest isn’t just excluded from that definition? That doesn’t mean that we don’t still have in the agreement recognition of fee simple interests — or even this language in 4.3. The whole reason is that there is an agreement as to how fee simple interests are to be dealt with.
That’s what the Haida Nation have said in the agreement and in this bill. I’m asking a question as to why we don’t just take that one step further. Wouldn’t that make it simpler in terms of any of the underlying concerns and questions I’ve been raising about how this all fits together? That’s the reason why I had raised it.
I will just pause here to see if the minister has any further comment on that. If not, I’m happy to ask my next question.
Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for the question.
I want to say, by way of beginning today’s debate, for those that are watching at home…. I’m told there is a great number of people, particularly in Haida Gwaii, that may wonder where we are in this process.
We are on what is called clause-by-clause debate. There are eight clauses in the bill before us and, of course, an agreement. We have spent 15 hours. We have approved clause 1. Clause 1 adds a new heading to the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.
I just wanted to put that on the record for those that are wondering why this debate is taking the form that it is and taking so long. We have, indeed, completed one clause, which adds a heading.
I’m pleased to see in the gallery today Doug White, who is the Premier’s special counsel on reconciliation.
The member started with what has been the subject of several questions, I think, about the nature of what the Premier said in the introduction of this historic bill. I, frankly, don’t think it’s helpful to go back and repeat some of the answers I’ve given on so many occasions thus far.
He then proceeds to reiterate his point about the drafting approach that he is proposing, which is different than the process that we have come up with. We, of course, believe that our approach clarifies that fee simple interest will continue and that the best way forward for those fee simple owners on Haida Gwaii is to confirm and continue, both in the agreement and the act, that their interests are protected in perpetuity.
We stand by that drafting approach. We think it is best for all the reasons I tried to articulate yesterday.
M. Lee: In terms of the response of the minister to my questions relating to a different drafting approach…. I appreciate the minister’s response today. This afternoon we’ll have further discussion about that point.
I appreciate what the minister has said here, including the reference yesterday that he believes and would take that I’m doing this in good faith.
In reference to the minister’s first comment…. I appreciate that he did not go on at length about the time we’ve expended to date. I won’t either. Only to say….
Those of the Haida Nation and those other First Nation leaders across the province, including in this gallery, will appreciate…. Again, as I’ve said, there’s the underlying agreement between the Haida Nation and the province of British Columbia. That was entered into on April 14. It’s not yet in effect. It’s not binding yet.
There’s the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself, which was put in place a year ago through 45 minutes of committee review by ourselves. I did support that recognition at the time, with the official opposition, and still do.
I do think that it’s important to understand the clarity around both the self-governance provisions in section 1 and the interaction with the title recognition under section 4 of Bill 25, as I discussed at length yesterday with the minister.
The reference to the Premier, of course, Mr. Chair, was only in response to the minister raising it. I just think it’s important, as we continue to talk about the use of this new model of recognition of Aboriginal title, that it’s understood what the Premier had said. That’s what we continue to be focused on. That’s the reason why we’re taking this amount of time.
I wanted to come back to section 4.4 in clause 2. The minister made reference to this yesterday as well, in terms of the sections of the agreement — 4.19 and 4.20. I would expect that that, of course, reflects itself in sub 4.4(3) of the bill itself, in clause 2.
Can I ask the minister: why is there a difference in wording, other than the fact that it’s a bill versus an agreement?
In terms of the actual thrust, the confirmation that the parties, during the transition period, will continue to use the processes under the reconciliation protocol and the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act…. I know the minister has said and acknowledges it was put in under the former B.C. Liberal government, now B.C. United — all of that. Why is there a difference in how this is expressed in 4.20 and 4.19 and in the way that sub 4.4(3) is expressed?
Hon. M. Rankin: I want to say to the member that when I used the expression “recognizing that he is proceeding in good faith,” I meant that sincerely. I want the record to note how much I respect the process we’re engaged in and the member’s participation in it. Lest there be any doubt of that, I need to clarify and confirm that.
The member asked a very specific question about the interrelationship between two sections of the agreement — namely, 4.19 and 4.20, and how they relate to sub 4.4(3) of the act. I’d say at the outset that the bill, to no one’s surprise, speaks to the statute books, if you will, to the people of British Columbia entirely, as any bill of the Legislature would, whereas the agreement is specific to the parties to the agreement and those affected by the agreement.
As a general rule, the process is clarified in the agreement, and I’ll come to that, under 4.19, 4.20. But the general provisions, including the constitutional recognition, are set out in 4.4. Perhaps I can explain what I mean.
The member did not reference, but I think it’s important to note, that subsection (2) of 4.4 is probably the main event. As the member will know, the introduction to sub 4.4(3) uses the phrase “for certainty,” so it is an effort to clarify what has been said in the preceding clause, which is so key.
It says: “Enactments of British Columbia in relation to Crown land continue to apply in relation to land that is held by the Haida Nation in aboriginal title.” With that assertion, however, clause (3) goes on to say: “For certainty, those enactments…that are applied by subsection (2) in relation to land that is held by the Haida Nation in aboriginal title are to be administered consistently with that aboriginal title and section 35 of the Constitution Act.” That’s the bold, broad contours of our work.
Now let’s zero in on what that means specifically to decision-making on Haida Gwaii. That’s the burden of the agreement, and that is the process set out in 4.19 and 4.20, which says very clearly that land and resource management decisions under provincial jurisdiction are to be made consistent with Haida Aboriginal title. Nothing new there. That’s consistent. But: “During the transition process, the parties will use the decision-making processes derived from the…protocol and the…reconciliation act as amended to align with Haida Aboriginal title.”
The member is absolutely right. Thanks to the good work done by the parties — the government of British Columbia, under the leadership, then, of the B.C. Liberal regime — the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act was put in force. That has a joint decision-making process that’s worked so well. It’s unique to Haida Gwaii, yet another reason why this is so unique. And we’re going to continue to do that, as modified, as we go forward with decision-making with respect to land and resources on Haida Gwaii.
I think the general provision for the statute book and the specific process set out in the agreement are aligned very, very nicely in what we are examining.
With that, I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); K. Greene in the chair.
The committee met at 11:27 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 Public Safety and Solicitor General.
On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,068,431,000 (continued).
The Chair: Minister, do you have opening remarks?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, not opening remarks but just an answer to the member for Parksville-Qualicum’s question yesterday. I’m going to read into the record the answer to that, and then my friend across the way, from Saanich North and the Islands, can start.
The member for Parksville-Qualicum asked about the Oceanside detachment. I can provide the following response. The Oceanside detachment is an integrated detachment. It includes the Oceanside provincial unit, with an authorized strength of 13 regular members; the Parksville municipal unit, with an authorized strength of 17 regular members; and Qualicum Beach municipal, with an authorized strength of eight regular members.
As of April 1, 2024, the adjusted vacancies for each of the business lines are as follows. The Oceanside provincial has an adjusted vacancy rate of five regular members — three hard vacancies, two soft vacancies; Parksville municipal had adjusted vacancies of three regular members, soft vacancies; and Qualicum Beach had an adjusted vacancy rate of one regular member, which is a hard vacancy rate.
The provincial investment. In that it’s the second year of the three investments, only the Oceanside provincial unit would be eligible for funding under this investment, as municipalities with a population over 5,000, Parksville and Qualicum Beach, are responsible for the provision of policing within their municipal boundaries.
However, the RCMP and the police services branch are working together to ensure that existing gaps and vacancies within the provincial police service units are identified and addressed. To date, the province has not seen a request from the RCMP for additional support for staffing in the Oceanside provincial unit.
A. Olsen: Just a question with respect to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act. It’s on concerns being brought to us with respect to the changes that were made not working as they were intended.
Despite the promises that the act would improve care for victims of crashes, we’re hearing many stories of the no-fault program leading to worse outcomes, of ICBC adjusters going against recommendations of medical professionals and about issues of cyclists and pedestrians, especially those who might not have an ICBC insurance policy, getting the proper compensation.
ICBC just rebated $395 million in individual rebates. How does the minister square the reality that the promise of the no-fault system that was brought in is not reconciling with the reality that we’re facing on the ground with giving such a large amount of money back, noting the fact that people are not receiving the compensation they deserve?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d have to disagree with the premise of the question. Enhanced care is working. It’s working in terms of people getting the care they need faster, sooner and for longer periods of time than they ever did under the old tort system, where you would often have to wait, sometimes years, for a tort to be heard in a court. The benefits they receive are for a lifetime, if necessary.
I’ll just give an example. If someone was injured, under the old system, in an accident that was their fault, the maximum benefit they would receive was $300,000. If they were in a serious accident that left them as a paraplegic, that’s all they got to last the rest of their life. Now, under the enhanced care system, that care is there for as long as you need. At the same time, 96 percent of what’s taken in or paid by the claimants is paid to the claimants. It wasn’t that way before, when you had the legal fees that were coming out.
In terms of the rebate, ICBC is able to do that because not only are we now being able to meet the minimum capital test but, because of the solid investment performance, we are then able to put back in the pockets of policyholders that $400 million in terms of rebate, which they have paid into the corporation, that has been generated for the corporation by investment income.
So the system is working the way it’s intended. Are there issues that come up with cases? Of course there will be. That’s why we’ve got the fairness officer in place. That’s why there’s the civil resolution process in place for people to be able to access. So all of those things are in place, and the system is working.
Now, as I said yesterday in answer to a question, can it improve? Of course it can. Any system can improve. ICBC wants to work and make sure that those improvements are taking place by constantly upgrading the skills and training of its employees and looking at changes that are taking place in terms of, you know, how car insurance is put in place, the kinds of care that people need, all of those things. But the system is doing what it’s intended to do, and we think it’s a significant improvement over what was in place before.
A. Olsen: I don’t have any further questions for ICBC, so I’m going to be switching gears. Thank you to the ICBC staff for hanging around for what amounts to a single question. I appreciate it. Nice to see you.
I do want to ask the minister…. In Bill 17 debate earlier this year and then as followed up in question period, both the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Minister of Environment indicated their willingness to implement accountability measures for the B.C. conservation officer service. As I understand it, either the minister has to amend the act to include it as a police service, or the minister that’s responsible for it — and, in fact, the head of the B.C. conservation service as it’s currently structured — needs to come and ask the Minister of Public Safety….
There were suggestions by both ministers that this project was going to happen. I’m wondering if the minister can provide a timeline when we can expect that for the public to be able to understand….
I guess maybe I should ask this question first. Has the Minister of the Environment approached the Minister of Public Safety and requested that the B.C. conservation service get the appropriate level of oversight, that the people of B.C. can expect the same level of protection — actually, that the conservation officers can expect the same level of protection that other officers with unlimited appointments get? Has the Minister of Environment made that request and, if so, what’s the timeline for implementation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What I can tell the member is that we are currently working with the Ministry of Environment on enhancing the independent oversight of conservation officers. Policy and legal analysis are underway on regulatory options, to apply independent oversight. The analysis includes consideration on the scope of the oversight that can be applied to special provincial constables. If a regulatory model is feasible, the ministry would look to introduce those regulations as soon as possible.
As part of phase 2 of the policing and public safety modernization initiative, the ministry is exploring options for a new policing oversight scheme, as recommended by the special committee. The analysis includes considering how independent oversight can be applied to officers along the law enforcement continuum, including the conservation officer service. That legislation, as we talked about earlier, is looking at 2027.
It’s a combination of can we do what you’re wanting to do by regulation? If so, we will try and do that as soon as possible, and if we cannot do that, then it would be by the phase 2 of the policing legislation.
A. Olsen: As I understood it, the B.C. conservation service could be added into…. I can’t remember the exact section of it at this point, but so that it could then fall under the regulation that we have, or the body that we have. The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner does the oversight.
I appreciate the answer, the response. I recognize that this has been an issue that I’ve raised a number of times with both ministries, and I’m glad to hear that there’s progress being made on it. I certainly hope that as soon as possible means as soon as possible — like very, very soon — because currently, right now, there’s a lack of protection. I think the province of British Columbia carries a liability, quite a large liability, the way it’s currently structured.
Recognizing the space that we have here, I do want to talk about another oversight issue that exists, if I may here, with respect to the C-IRG, the community-industry response group.
I have a number of constituents who had interactions, let’s just say, with the C-IRG at Fairy Creek. They’ve been going through the RCMP process to have their situation reviewed. I’ve been copied in the correspondence — or lack of correspondence. I can just share with the minister that this is one of the most frustrating experiences I think that people can have with police oversight. It is essentially not oversight. It is essentially just the RCMP investigating itself and putting the people who are making a complaint in basically a bureaucratic swamp.
Maybe just a comment from the minister. If he finds the RCMP, and in this case it’s about the C-IRG…. I guess that process is for…. The civilian complaints process is for any complaint against the RCMP. I’m just wondering if the minister feels that this is an adequate process, the way that it is playing out, where we’ve got the RCMP investigating itself and citizens who are engaged in that process just being spun around. No real information, no real clarity, and we are talking years down the road and still no resolution to the open files that exist.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The member is correct around the CRCC, the Civilian Review Complaints Commission. It’s federal; it’s not provincial. But I can tell you that they are doing a review of the C-IRG. It’s a review of the unit itself, and it’s a systemic review. That is underway. With respect to misconduct complaints against the RCMP, we don’t as a province have jurisdiction because the RCMP is a federal entity.
As the member knows, they are overseen by the CRCC. That is one of the challenges on that issue of accountability that the member raises that we do have. But in terms of the C-IRG, as he mentioned a moment ago in his question, there is a systemic review underway at that unit.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the response. Thank you. I think it was one of the factors, at least, that led me to weigh my voice in favour of that consensus report that we tabled back in 2022. That was that the current policing structure in the province has two sets of oversight. We have a set of oversight that we control, and we have a set of oversight that somebody else, somewhere else, controls.
Perpetually, we will have responses exactly as the minister just gave. This is that even though we have someone who’s responsible for policing — the minister that’s in front of me — in this province, we have a minister that also, then, can turn and say: “Well, that’s federal. They provide the oversight.”
I have a constituent here who has had an interaction with the police, and I’m not passing any judgment on what happened in that interaction. There was an interaction with the police. There is a process for oversight. The police were involved. The C-IRG was involved based on provincial laws.
What we have is just this layering of bureaucracy that essentially allows…. The CRCC in their correspondence back is taking the position: “Well, we’re working through it.” We’ve got complaints, legitimate complaints. The contentious issue is the result of provincial policy. Yet under the current structure that we have, we’ve got two sets of police oversight: independent, to some extent, and a complete lack of independence.
How is the minister going to reconcile the fact that we have these two systems in place for police oversight, depending on which police officer, even though they have the same appointments, even though they’re constables? They’re contracted under the…. They’re the provincial police service.
How does the minister reconcile having these two completely disparate systems that treat people totally differently? One is independent, and one completely lacks independence.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Yeah, the reality is that we do have two policing agencies, municipal police and the RCMP. One has a federal review process, and the other is provincial.
I fully understand what the member is saying. What I can tell you is…. This was obviously a concern raised by the all-party committee. The policing and public safety modernization initiative is looking at what options, related to the expansion of the mandates of both the IIO and the OPCC, we can do, and the ability to bring the RCMP under provincial oversight and therefore improve the process for complainants, affected persons and families.
I think one of the key areas that that means is ensuring that people are treated in a safe and culturally appropriate way. There’s work underway within the ministry on that phase 2.
At the same time, it’s also an issue that we continue to raise with Ottawa, at the federal level, about the challenges you have when you have the situation that the member described.
I was going to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.