First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Monday, November 24, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 104

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Dave Gantzer

Hon. Lana Popham

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Mental Health Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025

Hon. Josie Osborne

Bill M224 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2025

Sheldon Clare

Members’ Statements

Butterfly Support Network

Janet Routledge

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Clubs in Boundary-Similkameen Area

Donegal Wilson

South Vancouver Family Place

George Chow

George Winston Peary

Korky Neufeld

Holidays and Importance of Family and Community Connection

Darlene Rotchford

Extortion Crime Networks and Importance of Community Safety

Bruce Banman

Oral Questions

Government Handling of Land Title Cases and Property Rights

John Rustad

Hon. Niki Sharma

Stakeholder Consultation on Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Scott McInnis

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Health and Environmental Impacts of LNG Projects and Fracking

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Adrian Dix

Government Handling of Land Title Cases and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Hon. Niki Sharma

Drug Decriminalization Program and Substance Use Policies

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Waste Dumping Site on Cowichan Tribes Land and Protection of Water Sources

Sheldon Clare

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Elkford Power Outages and Management of Power Supply

Pete Davis

Hon. Adrian Dix

Electric Bus Transition Policy

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Adrian Dix

Government Position on Pipeline Projects

Larry Neufeld

Hon. Adrian Dix

Mobile Crisis Response Unit in Langley-Willowbrook Area

Jody Toor

Hon. Josie Osborne

Petitions

Tony Luck

George Anderson

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 72 — Appointment of Special Committee on Police Complaints

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Motion 73 — Membership Changes to Finance Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Committee of the Whole

Bill 21 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025 (continued)

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Reporting of Bills

Bill 21 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025

Committee of the Whole

Bill 24 — Vaping Product Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act

Hon. Niki Sharma

Brennan Day

Anna Kindy

Second Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act (continued)

Reporting of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Linda Hepner

Hon. Christine Boyle

Misty Van Popta

Tony Luck

Scott McInnis

Gavin Dew

Monday, November 24, 2025

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld : It’s not often that my wife, Cynthia, is able to come to the chamber. She’ll be here

all week. She is one of the best gifts ever given to me. She continues to inspire,

challenge and support me through life’s journey.

I’d like everyone to make Cynthia feel welcome.

Hon. Randene Neill : It is my absolute pleasure, and I see the gang up there, to welcome some folks from

the B.C. Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition. They are true lovers who get outdoors

and teach us what it means to take care of nature. When you fall in love with something,

you want to take care of it.

A big thank you to Jesse Zeman, Kyle Stelter, Tim Burkhart, Evan Holmgren, Gerry Paille,

Kathy MacRae, Kristen Walters, Mollie Cameron, Carilia Horning, Dean Werk and Aaron

Hill. Thank you so much.

Please, let’s give them a warm welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Scott McInnis : I was supposed to have four guests on the precinct today, but two of them were turned

around in Calgary in a blizzard, and they’ll be spending the next 12 hours in the

airport. Nevertheless, my son, Luke, and my lovely wife, Diana, were able to make

the trip.

I’m hoping the House can please make them feel very welcome here today.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Today I want to welcome some members of our ICBC team who are joining us in the gallery

today. We have Andrew Brooke, Alyson Rondeau, Rob Termuende, Thuy Pham, Tom Hancock

and Jeremy Wood.

Please make them feel welcome.

Lorne Doerkson : I’m proud to make introductions today of two amazing women. They’re well known to

this House, of course.

Donna Barnett, who is here on our chamber floor this afternoon, is a three-term MLA

for Cariboo-Chilcotin. She has been a past mayor and is a current district councillor

for the city of 100 Mile, of course.

Up above us here we have Mayor Pinkney. She has been involved in political situations

in 100 Mile House since 2002.

Together they are an absolutely unstoppable force. They are here today. We’ve had

meetings with the Premier and with six other ministries. It has been a very busy morning.

They are fierce advocates for everything 100 Mile and everything South Cariboo.

Please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

Dave Gantzer

Hon. Lana Popham : Today I’d just like to share some news. We will be saying goodbye to someone who

has spent 16 years protecting us in the Legislature as members, part of the incredible

protective services team.

We’ll be losing Dave Gantzer two Fridays from now. This is the last day that he’ll

be here on a sitting day, so if anybody wants to take a moment to say goodbye to him

in the halls, please do. He’s got two more Fridays, but I know most of us won’t be

here.

Dave has been an incredible person that has been part of our lives. He started probably

around the same time that I started, so I feel like he’s a fixture here. I’m going

to miss him a lot. He’s always got a great smile. You always feel like he’s wanting

to engage in conversation and share things about his life with you, which has been

really special.

I know from other members, because they’ve told me, that he is an avid reader, and

I’ve heard many of his cycling adventure stories.

We just want to really wish Dave all the best in his retirement.

I hope there are a lot of books and a lot of bikes in your future. Thanks for everything

you’ve done for us.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare : On the precinct today visiting me were Mark and Carla Christy. Mark and Carla are

old friends of mine who lived in Prince George for many years, then moved down to

Duncan and Victoria and now live in Camrose, Alberta. They came out to have lunch

with me in the dining room.

Mark is one of my mentors in my piping career. He was my pipe major in the Prince

George Pipes and Drums for many years. He’s a grade 1 player, one of the best players

I know.

If you happen to run into them, and I’m sure they’ll be around the precinct, please

make them most welcome, regardless of how you feel about bagpipes.

Susie Chant : Joining us in the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon is His Excellency Wang Di, the

ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Canada. He is joined by embassy staff

Mr. Li Zhongzhou and Mr. Xiong Chaoqiang. His Excellency is here on his first official

visit to British Columbia.

Would this House please make them feel most welcome.

Heather Maahs : I would like to take this opportunity to wish my daughter a very happy birthday.

November is a busy month in my family, and I’m just happy that I can wish my daughter,

Laura, a happy birthday on this day.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : I’m so pleased to rise to introduce two friends in the gallery today, Silvia Vajushi

and Doug Darwish, who are from the constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake.

They now live in the capital, but in Alberta, they were leaders working with the government

of Alberta — in the area, for Silvia, of mental health and addiction services and

early childhood intervention. Doug advocated and supported people with disabilities

in the Premier’s Council in Alberta.

I’m so pleased that they now call Victoria home and that they are valued volunteers

and members of the riding association in Victoria–Swan Lake.

Will the House please join me in helping me introduce and make Silvia and Doug feel

very welcome.

Bruce Banman : Today it seems to be “bring your spouse to work week,” so I would love to introduce

my wife, Sharon. I know I can speak on behalf of the member for Abbotsford West that

if his spouse and my spouse get together, probably no good coming for either one of

us on this. But they are the driving force behind us.

Would the House please make Sharon feel very, very welcome.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I, too, would like to join the competition for best spouse joining us in the House

today.

My favourite constituent and love of my life, Brian, is here. Brian is having his

very first week of paid vacation in probably over 25 years, and he has decided to

use that time to come and spend it here in question period. If that isn’t love, I

really don’t know what is.

Thank you.

Would everybody please make him feel welcome.

Gavin Dew : I had the pleasure of meeting earlier today with Roz Seyednejad and Rahim Karmali

from SenseNet, a B.C.-based company that uses smart sensors and AI to detect wildfires

early and stop them before they get out of hand.

For folks like me in the Okanagan, that’s a very important area of concern. We actually

produce two to three times the emissions from wildfire smoke each year as we do from

the entirety of human and industrial civilization, and we spend nine times as much

fighting wildfires as we do preventing them.

I know that SenseNet is meeting tomorrow with the Minister of Forests, and I hope

they will be well received.

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I’d like to welcome to this precinct today the Alliance of B.C. Students and the

Alma Mater Society of UBC.

The Alliance of B.C. Students is a coalition of three different student associations

across British Columbia that advocate at the provincial level for accessible and affordable

post-secondary education in B.C. Collectively, they represent over tens of thousands

of students, undergrads and graduate students, and they exist to advocate for the

rights and interests of students across B.C.

Many of the members of their student societies are here as well. I had the opportunity

to meet with them earlier today and really appreciate all the advocacy that they do.

If the House would please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. Anne Kang : I would like to introduce my amazing comms team in the Ministry of Tourism, Arts,

Culture and Sport. As you can see, these amazing, strong and passionate women work

very hard to make sure that we have good communication to the people of British Columbia

on what we are doing in our ministry.

I would like to introduce Jill Nessel, Hope Latham, Celine Beckner, Cathy Cui and

Rachel Nesbitt.

Would the House please make my team feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew : I’d like to join the minister in welcoming the students that are seated up in the

gallery today.

I want to let you know that 20 years ago I was seated up in the gallery as you are,

and now myself and others who started their political involvement in student leadership

are sitting on this floor down here.

So as I welcome you, I also want to let you know that one of you, some of you, maybe

many of you will one day end up sitting in this House. I would encourage you to build

on the work you’re doing today and to think about your opportunities for future service.

Thank you for being here today.

Darlene Rotchford : I have two fabulous women joining me in the House today. I was lucky enough to not

just be elected at the same time as them but to spend time with them on one of my

councils.

[1:45 p.m.]

I hope the House will join me in making feel most welcome Carrie Smart, councillor

from the district of Oak Bay, and Andrea Boardman from the township of Esquimalt.

As many people on both sides of this House talk about the importance of local government,

electing good, strong women is a really key part of that as well.

Please join me in welcoming them.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : I’d like to wish my sister, who is one year younger than me…. I will not say how

old she is, because everybody will know. She is a housekeeper at the Cowichan District

Hospital. So often the unsung heroes of our workplace, cleaning professionals, carry

out one of the most vital and demanding responsibilities, keeping our spaces clean

and safe.

I just wanted to wish her a happy birthday for yesterday, November 23.

She is loved very widely in our community.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I spy with my little eye the mayor of Clearwater sitting in the gallery today. I

want to take this opportunity to welcome Merlin Blackwell to the House, thank him

for being here and thank him for being such a fierce champion of his community.

As a former mayor, we worked closely together back in those days, and I still really

value his advice. It’s really great to see him in the House today.

Would everybody please make him feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Mental Health

Amendment Act ( N o . 2), 2025

Hon. Josie Osborne presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a

bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2025.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I move that the Mental Health Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, be introduced and read

a first time.

I am pleased to introduce this bill to amend the Mental Health Act.

This act proposes to repeal

section 31(1) of the Mental Health Act, sometimes referred

to as the “deemed consent” provision, and replace it with a liability shield that

is more explicit, robust and consistent with similar protections within the Mental

Health Act and in other similar legislation.

This amendment does not defeat the constitutional claim that is currently before the

court. It does provide clarity in the operation of the Mental Health Act and confirms

that doctors, nurses and others cannot be liable in damages for providing treatment

to patients, including those providing involuntary treatment that has been authorized

by the director of a mental health facility in good faith and in reasonable care.

We are also proposing a related minor amendment to

section 31(2) of the act. This

subsection allows involuntary patients to request second opinions regarding their

treatment. The

section includes a cross-reference to

section 31(1), and since we propose

that subsection be repealed, it updates the language in

section 31(2). This is necessary

so the provision can operate as intended.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I move that Bill 32 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M224 — Insurance (Vehicle)

Amendment Act, 2025

Sheldon Clare presented a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2025.

Sheldon Clare : I move that a bill intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2025, of which notice

has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time

now.

This bill is very simple. It’s to make the act consistent with the federal definition

of a catastrophic injury. What this would do is extend the time period within which

an individual can make a claim for benefits in respect of a catastrophic injury, and

it would reduce the number of amputations for an insured to sustain a catastrophic

injury from two to one or more.

That is basically it, and I look forward to working with all members of the House

to ensure that this bill receives swift passage and all due consideration.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

[1:50 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare : 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.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Butterfly Support Network

Janet Routledge : I rise to honour the vital work of the Butterfly Support Network, a registered non-profit

that provides integrated support, resources and community for families navigating

pregnancy loss, infant loss and infertility.

These experiences are far more common than we may realize. One in four pregnancies

end in loss, and one in six couples will navigate fertility challenges every year

in B.C. There are more than 16,000 pregnancy losses, including miscarriage, termination

for medical reasons, stillbirth and infant loss. These losses have a profound impact

not only on the birthing person but also on their partners and the wider family unit.

Yet far too many face these devastating losses in silence and alone.

The Butterfly Support Network helps to fill this critical gap.

Since its inception in 2019, it has supported nearly 10,000 people who have faced

infertility or perinatal loss. In 2025 alone, more than 1,600 have already accessed

their programs and services, which are offered at no cost and include professional

counselling, support groups, peer support, memory boxes and essential resources for

hospitals and emergency departments. These free services are made possible through

the generosity of community fundraising, including the annual Butterfly Memorial Run,

and peer-driven fundraising across the province.

At the heart of this organization is a network of more than 50 volunteers with lived

experience of grief, pregnancy loss or infertility. Their compassion, courage and

dedication ensure that families in every corner of our province have access to understanding,

community and connection when they need it most.

Please join me in thanking the Butterfly Support Network for the life-changing work

they do to support grieving families.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Clubs

in Boundary-Similkameen Area

Donegal Wilson : I rise today to recognize the seven incredible fish and wildlife conservation clubs

that serve the Boundary-Similkameen. They represent decades of volunteerism, passion

and a deep commitment to the land.

Across my region, these clubs rebuild spawning channels, maintain shooting ranges

that support safe firearm training, assist with wildlife surveys, partner with ranchers

and landowners to improve habitat and teach new hunters and anglers the value of conservation

and respect for the land. Many of the next generation of outdoors people, including

future conservation officers and biologists, got their start through programs by these

clubs.

A recent example of their leadership comes from this fall in Grand Forks, where nearly

100 white-tailed deer died from epizootic hemorrhagic disease.

In the face of fear, confusion and a growing public concern, the Grand Forks Wildlife

Association stepped up. Volunteers contacted regional biologists, escalated the issues

to my office and the ministry, handled media inquiries, secured a proper disposal

location and communicated accurate information to the public. They helped ensure a

coordinated, science-based response at a time when many communities would have been

left struggling.

This was not their job, but they did it because they cared deeply about wildlife,

their community and the health of our ecosystems in B.C. They did it while balancing

work, family and the demands of everyday life.

This is the spirit of volunteerism in these groups. These clubs demonstrate every

day that conservation is not about closing the outdoors to people. It is about engaging

people in protecting it. Their members invest thousands of volunteer hours to ensure

future generations have the same opportunities that shaped so many of us growing up

in B.C.

Thank you to every volunteer who gives their time, expertise and passion to this work.

You are strengthening rural communities, protecting our natural resources and preserving

a uniquely British Columbia way of life.

[1:55 p.m.]

South Vancouver Family Place

George Chow : I would like to speak to the important work of community organizations in our province,

like the South Vancouver Family Place in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview.

The South Vancouver Family Place was established in 1975 with the objective to help

families with young children to build healthy relationships and community networks

by providing services and programs in a welcoming, nurturing, stimulating and respectful

environment. Since the 1990s, South Vancouver has undergone rapid growth and continues

to develop as a multicultural, multilingual community with a large number of immigrant

families.

Some of the programs and services being offered are the family drop-in program, which

is a parent-child interactive program for families with kids to age five; the parenting

education program, which is designed to help parents strengthen their parenting skills

and improve their relationship with their children; and the Kids Care Preschool, which

provides licensed preschool programs for children three to five years old and strives

to create an environment that supports a child’s development, positive learning and

effective social skills to prepare the children for a healthy transition to kindergarten.

In 1999, due to growing demand by Chinese immigrants, a bilingual program with Chinese

South Vancouver Family Place also partners with others to administer the early childhood

education certificate program to help train child care workers that are so much in

demand.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff and volunteers of the

South Vancouver Family Place for all their good work in the community.

George Winston Peary

Korky Neufeld : Today I want to remember and celebrate the remarkable life of George Winston Peary

— born October 30, 1940; passed on September 29, 2025; a man whose wisdom, humility

and generosity shaped not only Abbotsford but the hearts of everyone he knew.

George was many things. He was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, educator, mentor,

friend and leader. He lived a life of purpose guided by a deep sense of service and

unwavering belief in community. Whether in the classroom or at city hall or on the

curling rink, George led by example, always with humour, compassion and integrity.

From humble beginnings in Brandon, Manitoba, George rose to become one of Abbotsford’s

most respected educators and civic leaders. His vision for education transformed opportunities

for countless students, most notably through the creation of the career technical

centre, a model that continues to inspire high school students into trade skills training

across British Columbia.

As a councillor and later as mayor, George devoted himself to building a stronger,

kinder community, one rooted in respect, inclusion and shared purpose. He tirelessly

advocated for the Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre until it became a

reality in 2008. He gave of his life freely, served on countless boards and organizations,

never seeking recognition but always making a difference.

George’s legacy is found in the lives he touched, in the students he inspired, the

colleagues he mentored, the friends he encouraged and the family he loved beyond measure.

His laughter, wisdom and quiet strength will echo through our community for generations

to come.

In the words of his namesake, Winston Churchill: “To each there comes in their lifetime

a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the

chance to do a very special thing. What a tragedy if that moment finds them unprepared.”

George was ready for every moment life offered. He met each one with courage, grace

and heart.

Rest well, George Winston Peary. You gave your finest hour, again and again, for all

of us.

Holidays and Importance of

Family and Community Connection

Darlene Rotchford : As we enter the holiday season, I want to take a moment to reflect on what this time

of year truly means.

For me, the holidays have always held a special place in my heart. I lost my mom when

I was very young, but every December I feel her presence a little closer. The traditions

we shared — the lights, the music, the simple joy of being together — are gifts that

I now have the privilege of passing on to my little girls.

[2:00 p.m.]

This year is especially meaningful as we grow our families and we celebrate our first

holiday with baby Jo.

But the holidays are not just about celebration. They’re about community, about making

room at our tables, opening our doors and extending kindness to those who may be struggling

or spending the holidays alone.

When I first moved to British Columbia, I had no family close. Some of my most cherished

memories came from what we now fondly call our “misfit Christmas,” spent with people

who welcomed me, and I welcomed them without hesitation. That sense of belonging is

something I think we can all offer to each other.

As the B.C. government’s military liaison, I also want to especially acknowledge our

CAF members who will spend the holidays away from their loved ones, whether deployed

overseas or supporting critical operations here at home. Their service, their sacrifice

and the sacrifices made by their families do not go unnoticed. I encourage British

Columbians to keep them in their hearts, to send a holiday card if they can, through

their MFRC, and to extend support to military families within your communities.

Also, remember those working through the holidays to keep us safe — our health care

workers, our first responders and our essential service providers. A small gesture

of appreciation could mean more than we may ever realize to those people.

It would be shameful if I didn’t put in a plug about this upcoming Friday. I will

be joining my family and, I hope, some others who have theirs at this Legislative

Assembly for our annual Christmas light up, a tradition that reminds us of the warmth

and light we can bring to one another.

I hope all British Columbians can find moments of joy, connection and generosity in

the weeks ahead.

To everyone across the province, to everyone on the chamber floor and to the people

of Esquimalt-Colwood, I wish you all a safe, peaceful and happy holiday season ahead.

Extortion Crime Networks and

Importance of Community Safety

Bruce Banman : I stand here today to mourn the loss of feeling safe in our own homes and our communities.

I mourn the loss of our innocence.

British Columbia is facing an unprecedented extortion crisis. Daily violent attacks

by extortion terrorists show the fact that our province has lost its way. Communities

like Abbotsford and Surrey now find themselves among the most dangerous places in

Canada due to regular, unprecedented extortion violence. Residents tell me they no

longer recognize their own province or their community, and I share that feeling.

B.C. was once known for having some of the safest neighbourhoods in the world. Today

attacks, shootings, gang warfare, drugs and acts of random violence have made our

streets virtually unrecognizable. We must ask ourselves: where did we go wrong? What

happened to our great province built on trust, safety, community and respect for each

other? How do we return to the time when families could leave their doors unlocked,

children could walk to school alone, kids could play outside without fear and people

felt safe?

This is not nostalgia. It’s remembering the high standard of safety and quality of

life once enjoyed by all British Columbians. It’s not only lifelong residents who

see this change. Newcomers, some who have been here for as little as eight years,

tell me they have watched this decline occur in real time. The erosion of safety and

community that once defined our province is, tragically, now an undeniable fact.

I urge this House to acknowledge this sad reality. I mourn what we’ve lost, but I

refuse to accept this as inevitable, as the new normal. This means choosing safety

over disorder rather than letting British Columbians continue to live in fear and

uncertainty.

I urge all members to put aside political ideologies and work together to bring back

safe neighbourhoods for the hard-working people of our great province.

They deserve no less from us.

Oral Questions

Government Handling of Land Title

Cases and Property Rights

John Rustad : Well, it was August 11 when this government said they were going to file a stay in

the Cowichan case. It was October 29 when they repeated that claim that they were

going to file a stay.

Here we are now. Four months have gone by since the Cowichan case, and there has been

no action. A stay has not been filed. The Premier has been caught, quite frankly,

with his pants down, telling the public one thing but not following through with it.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, after four months, I have a simple question for the Premier. Why did this Premier

tell British Columbians that he was going to be filing a stay in this court case when

nothing has actually been filed?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We have been hard at work since the decision came out. Not only did we very quickly

announce the stay application that we’d be pursuing along with the appeal; we’ve been

meeting on the ground with affected landowners and collecting their stories, which

is part of the work that will feed into our stay application.

It’s our number one priority. There is no deadline for a stay application.

In terms of the importance that we place on this, we’re going to be focused on the

work we need to do to file that application, work with all parties involved and stand

up for the private property owners that we are engaging with right now.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

John Rustad : I find it interesting that the member opposite says they’re working with the private

property owners to put in a stay application.

Here’s a novel idea. Six years ago, when this case came forward, why didn’t you engage

the private property owners then? Private property owners have been left in the cold

until suddenly a decision was made in August, after six years. Now they’ve made a

decision that they want to work with private property owners. I think it’s good that

they do, but here’s an idea for you. Here’s an idea for this government.

Why doesn’t this government actually ask to reopen this case and allow private property

owners to go forward and put their case forward to protect their own rights? Clearly

this government is not doing the job of protecting private property rights.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We made strong arguments at the trial level to protect private property rights, to

stand up for our Land Title Act, to make sure that those interests were protected.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We were also one of the parties that went before the judge to make an application,

to say that we thought that the private property owners should be notified about what

was happening at that time.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : We were the ones that brought that forward, and the court said at that stage that

they didn’t foresee any impacts to the private property owners, and that’s why notification

wasn’t there. They clearly got that wrong, and that is why we announced an appeal

and a stay, that we would be pursuing the evidence…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, come to order.

Hon. Niki Sharma : … to put before the court to make sure that they saw that, in our view, that was

an error. We’ll continue to stand up for those rights and work forward towards a resolution.

Stakeholder Consultation on

Heritage Conservation Act Amendments

Scott McInnis : Opposition to the proposed Heritage Conservation Act amendments is coming from every

corner of the province. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Business Council of

B.C., the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the B.C. Real Estate

Association and the Association for Mineral Exploration are just a few in a long,

growing list.

They all say the same thing. No meaningful consultation has taken place. Permitting

will be much slower. Investor confidence is collapsing. This is nothing more than

an ideological push to align the act with DRIPA instead of instituting meaningful

policy.

To the Premier, besides a handful of First Nations who helped co-draft these amendments

under NDAs, is there anybody left in the province who actually supports these changes?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Thanks to the member opposite for the opportunity to be able to speak.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Do you want to get up and ask a question?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The loudmouth from Abbotsford always has something to say. But let’s….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. The question was asked, and the….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members. The question was asked. The minister is trying to answer now. Please.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : Trying indeed, Mr. Speaker.

The Heritage Conservation Act is a very important piece of legislation that, on this

side of the House, we’ve been doing an awful lot of engagement on, not just for the

past number of months but for the past number of years.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ve led a comprehensive engagement that has allowed local government leaders and

industry leaders to provide their feedback. There has been no draft legislation to

date. We are continuing to hear what people….

I had an opportunity to be able to meet with the Minister of Local Governments and

the president of UBCM on Friday, where we had an opportunity to talk about their submission.

I’m looking forward to the continued engagement.

But I would remind the member opposite that we’re talking about people’s heritage.

We’re talking about First Nations artifacts. So I hope that, as part of this discussion,

there can be some respect given to this.

I hope, as part of this discussion, we can talk about speeding up permitting, can

talk about ensuring that we’re protecting communities, like Lytton, that have gone

through so many challenges with their rebuild, and at the same time, we can respect

First Nations shared decision-making in aligning this with DRIPA.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : Well, I think respecting the opposition of just about every business association,

local government leadership group and everybody else would be kind of a constructive

start to this.

These changes aren’t about…. These changes have nothing to do with speeding up permitting.

Even the Business Council of B.C., which represents most of the business organizations

in this province, has said that the HCA amendments “shift power dramatically from

elected governments to a shared model with limited transparency.”

In 2019, this government promised DRIPA would be interpreted consistently with

section

35 of the Constitution Act. Clearly, they’ve abandoned that promise entirely.

Will the Premier do the right thing, listen to British Columbians and pull this Land

Act on steroids off the table once and for all?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : There is no draft legislation. We’re engaging with British Columbians. We have had

thousands of submissions. We’ve had people participating in surveys.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities sent in their submission. I spent this weekend reading

their comprehensive document. In fact, they support 26 of our proposals that we’re

giving consideration to.

The engagement doesn’t stop here.

I want to ensure that when we bring forward legislation, we bring forward legislation

that speeds up permits, that respects First Nations, that ensures that communities

that face wildfire challenges and a whole host of other things, like floods, can rebuild

faster. I’ve been very clear, as has this side of the House, what we want to accomplish.

It is a shame that the members opposite are standing away from this legislation and,

I would say, showing a level of disrespect.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I would say, member opposite, what’s shameful is the level of disrespect that the

members opposite are showing to First Nations and their artifacts and their heritage.

That’s what’s disrespectful.

What I would say is that we are focused on, on this side of the House, building British

Columbia.

The members opposite are opposed to every major project in British Columbia. They’ll

champion a project from Alberta. They won’t champion projects from B.C. We will modernize

the Heritage Conservation Act in a way that meets the needs of British Columbians.

Health and Environmental Impacts

of LNG Projects and Fracking

Jeremy Valeriote : Last week I asked this government to study the health impacts of the fossil gas industry

in B.C. The Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions assured this House that the analysis

had already been done. He referenced a 2018 report on fracking in B.C., but the minister

will know that that report did not include an examination of the public health implications

of fracking in the northeast of our province.

Thanks to relentless lobbying by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and

others, we still don’t have a comprehensive, cumulative and independent health impact

assessment of LNG and fracking.

We can use data from the rest of North America to piece the picture together, and

the results are clear. Fracking methane out of the earth harms human health, increasing

pressure and costs to our health care system, social programs and infrastructure.

My question is to the Minister of Health. When will her ministry step up and conduct

the research that wasn’t done in 2018?

Hon. Adrian Dix : As noted to the member last week, the government instituted a fundamental review

of hydraulic fracturing in B.C., which came with recommendations — recommendations

that were broadly implemented, that have had a significant effect. As the member will

know, there has been significant progress with respect to emissions in the oil and

gas industry in a general sense, especially around methane emissions, a 51 percent

reduction from 2015. And this work continues.

[2:15 p.m.]

He’ll also know that in environmental assessment processes in B.C., including recent

ones with respect to Ksi Lisims and other projects, these issues have been comprehensively

raised, and they are in those processes.

I disagree with the characterization of the member. I would say that always, in our

regulation, especially of water and of human health, is at the forefront of that regulation,

whether it’s done by ministries of the government or by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : As we anticipate the results of the CleanBC update review, I like to anticipate the

rehearsed lines we hear from this government defending its gamble on LNG, climate

be darned.

They cite the handful of First Nations who’ve partnered on these projects, forgetting

to mention the many First Nations who oppose them due to economic, social and environmental

harms. Every dollar invested in LNG is a dollar that could propel us into the inevitable

clean energy transition, creating more jobs per dollar spent than on polluting fossil

fuels.

This government loves to say that B.C.’s LNG is the cleanest in the world. Call it

what you want. Clean poison is still poison. B.C. LNG burned elsewhere will blast

megatons of climate bomb into our global atmosphere. It doesn’t recognize national

boundaries.

My question is for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Minister, which fossil

fuel lobby group hired the marketing genius who dreamed up the “cleanest LNG in the

world” fiction?

Hon. Adrian Dix : I think it’s reasonable for the member to oppose projects in British Columbia, including

ones led by First Nations such as Cedar LNG, led by the Haisla; or Ksi Lisims LNG,

led by the Nisg̱a’a First Nation. That’s reasonable. He can disagree with the Haisla, and he can disagree

with the Nisg̱a’a.

What he can’t disagree with is the Cedar LNG project will have the lowest-emission

LNG in the world. That isn’t an issue of opinion. That is an issue of fact.

We’re going to continue to do what we’ve done from the beginning, which is to ensure

a fair return on B.C.’s resources, that communities are protected, that we address

climate commitments, that we respect First Nations and that we ensure that British

Columbians and Canadians work on major projects in our province. In this area, we

have continued to meet those commitments, and we’re going to continue to do so.

Government Handling of Land Title

Cases and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie : Eighty-five out of 93 members in this House own residential properties. This is according

to public disclosures. I have the list, and I’m going to be publishing it later today.

The government and official opposition both believe that the lands of B.C. were stolen,

and that’s why they voted down our bill to get rid of land acknowledgements. If they

want to give back stolen lands, today is their chance.

My question is: which member will be the change that they want to see in this world

by being the first to transfer the title of their own property over to a local Indigenous

tribe?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : It seems that the member opposite is in a spirit of generosity. I understand she

herself has a large home in the…. No, not the Downtown Eastside. No, it’s a tonier

place. It’s West Point Grey….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : She doesn’t own a home? Okay.

You know, I think in the end…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …the member over there is going to try and sow discord, disunity, put neighbour against

neighbour, pit member against member.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the rest of this House just want to be doing things

like improving health care, fighting crime, making sure that our neighbourhoods are

stronger, that people have jobs. If members opposite don’t agree, I thought that’s

what they wanted to do too. Certainly we on this side of the House are focused on

those efforts.

Let me just be clear yet again. I know some members have heard us say it, but it never….

It goes in one ear, goes out the other. Private property in this province is protected.

If a nation wants to purchase it, the person who owns it needs to sell it, if they

want to sell it. If they don’t, then they don’t have to sell it. It’s the way that

our system works in B.C.

We’re working in terms of reconciliation with First Nations to acknowledge that there

was harm. I do think sexual violence, I do think racism, I do think gunboats blowing

up people’s villages, I do think residential schools where you were told you can’t

speak your language or you’d be abused, be hit, might not even get to go home to your

families…. I do think that is violence. I do think that is harm. And I do think, sadly,

that is true.

[2:20 p.m.]

That did happen in this province through laws that were passed in this building. We

have a better job that we can do together, but it’s not through spreading hate and

division. It’s through uniting and looking each other in the eyes, as neighbours,

as friends, as co-workers….

The Speaker : Thank you, Minister.

Members, as the Chair has done in the past, I will remind members that questions must

pertain to the ministerial responsibility.

Member, do you have a different question?

Dallas Brodie : First of all, in response to that, it’s actually counsel for the Cowichan Nation

who made a comment to the media that said that, actually, homeowners in Richmond now

have to seek approval of the Cowichan band to sell their properties: “So don’t tell

me that private property has not been impacted by this decision. That’s a complete

falsehood.”

Mr. Speaker, let me sweeten the deal. I’ll pay for the conveyancing fees. I’ll retain

a lawyer. I’ll even bring them to the House, whatever it takes. We can draw up the

papers this afternoon, and they can transfer title to the tribe of their choice. Wouldn’t

that be nice? I’m sure all the members of this House will recognize their leadership

with a round of applause.

My question is: who will be the first to give their own land back? I’m including the

member who just answered this question, who owns a property in a tony neighbourhood

of Vancouver called the West End.

The Speaker : Member, again, as I reminded you earlier, the question must be pertaining to the

ministerial responsibility.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. No, the Chair has heard you.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, that’s fine. The Chair has heard you.

Hon. Niki Sharma : As I’ve already said, we’re in court right now and will be in court again to defend

the property rights of British Columbians across this province. What we won’t be doing

is standing up in places like this, where we respect and honour the history and traditions

of the peoples of this province, and condemning them through racist comments and splitting

people apart.

We have really complicated problems to solve in this province, and we’ll do it by

sitting at a table together, bringing people together to solve those problems so that

we can move forward in a way that honours everybody’s history and all their rights.

That’s the work we’re going to continue to do on this side.

Drug Decriminalization Program

and Substance Use Policies

Claire Rattée : In Cowichan, 80 overdoses in 24 hours have turned into an unprecedented crisis. Shelters

ran out of naloxone, paramedics were overwhelmed, and people were collapsing one after

another. Outreach workers called it terrifying and hell on wheels, and the community

is traumatized.

The Premier admitted that decriminalization was a failed experiment, yet this government

still refuses to reverse course, even as drugs flood into communities and as treatment

and recovery resources are scarce and underfunded.

When will the NDP learn that the problem isn’t running out of naloxone; it’s normalizing

the use of dangerous drugs?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

What has taken place in Cowichan is a terrible set of circumstances, and I know that

everybody has been thinking about that.

Naloxone is life-saving equipment and should be part of anybody’s first-aid kit, literally.

That’s how important this is, and we will continue our work. I have asked Island Health

to look directly into this and understand the situation at hand with respect to naloxone.

With respect to decriminalization, I want to be very, very clear. Using illicit drugs

is illegal, and our government has taken a very firm stance on this. At the same time,

there are very restricted circumstances under which people are permitted to possess

a small amount of illicit drugs, as one of a suite of strategies to reduce the harms

and separate people from the illicit drug supply.

We remain focused on building out the entire continuum, the entire spectrum of mental

health and substance use supports, to help people suffering from substance use disorder

to remove themselves from the dangerous impacts of the illicit drug supply and to

be able to pursue treatment and recovery. That is the work of this government.

We have invested millions of dollars into this. We will continue to expand these services

to help people.

[2:25 p.m.]

Waste Dumping Site on

Cowichan Tribes Land and

Protection of Water Sources

Sheldon Clare : The government still has not revealed when it became aware of hazardous leachates

threatening the Cowichan watershed.

Can the minister state that Cowichan’s drinking water and aquifer are safe and will

continue to be so, yes or no?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : We’ve heard people’s concerns about this site, and we are taking action.

In 2021, the newly created integrated environmental enforcement unit led an investigation.

We have a range of tools to make sure that the environment is protected, like pollution

abatement and prevention orders.

I met with the member opposite on Thursday. He did not provide me with the information

that he had, and I did verify with him about the reports that we received. He’s still

refusing to give me this information.

On this side of the House, we want to collaborate. We want to work with the federal

government, the Cowichan Tribes…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : …to try to resolve this issue as best as we can, and I would welcome any information

that the member would like to bring forward.

Elkford Power Outages and

Management of Power Supply

Pete Davis : Elkford has had 28 power outages this year — 28 — some lasting six hours or more.

Families can’t stay warm, kids are left in the dark, and businesses lose revenue.

With another harsh Kootenay winter coming, my constituents are at serious risk. Residents

could freeze in minus-30-degree conditions without power. I’ve reached out to the

minister’s office, and I’ve received no response. I am sure the minister would not

want to sit through a six-hour outage in the freezing cold, and neither do my constituents.

Will the minister explain why this government has done nothing to fix these outages

that are putting my constituents at risk?

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member spoke to me about this last week, and I said I was absolutely willing

to meet with him, and I will. I’m not sure why…. I know he said this comment in the

media, and I guess it sounds good, but it’s not true.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : With respect, a letter was sent to the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro and myself

in early November. The member was informed, for example, that B.C. Hydro is conducting

a significant review, an urgent review.

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Yes, I do, of course.

The Speaker : Member. No cross-talk, please.

Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The president of B.C. Hydro responded to a letter that was jointly sent to the president

of B.C. Hydro and myself. The letter detailed the last three…. Since September, there

have been three outages. One was caused by trees falling on a transmission line. Since

September….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The hon. member wants to have a debate across the floor and is not interested in the

information that he has been provided in detail by B.C. Hydro, but maybe the House

would be interested if he is not.

The second involved an incident at a mine site that affected the Elkford area. The

third involved a substation issue which required people to come from Cranbrook to

fix.

B.C. Hydro is working and has reported on each and every incident to local people

in Elkford. We are obviously concerned and doing work on the issue. But the three

cases I described, three different circumstances that led to outages, demonstrate

that we may not be facing entirely a systemic problem here.

The review is taking place. The member will be informed as soon as it is done, and

I am prepared to meet with him at any time.

Electric Bus Transition Policy

Harman Bhangu : Looks like the same minister that destroyed our health care system is now looking

to destroy our energy and transit systems.

We’ve seen what happens when governments rush EV transitions. New York pulled electric

buses after constant failures. Proterra collapsed in the U.S. because their buses

weren’t reliable. Bus batteries in Europe died mid-route, and passengers were left

stranded. Here in B.C., it takes four electric vehicle buses to do the work of one

natural gas or diesel bus.

Before phasing out natural gas and diesel buses, has this government done any real

analysis or consequences of charging capacity, maintenance needed for an all-electric

fleet, or is this just ideologically driven and motivated?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix : B.C. is leading Canada in the adoption of EV vehicles. It’s leading Canada because

people in British Columbia understand that EV vehicles, including buses, are really

the future of transport in our world.

All over the world, we’re seeing dramatic increases in EV purchases and the adoption

of EV systems in transit as well. B.C., since the 1990s, has been a leader on this

question, a leader in innovation in hydrogen, innovation in electric vehicles and

innovation in transit.

Now, the member may not want to be on the side of innovation, may not want to be on

the side of the future. He may be seeking to take us to some distant past, but here

in British Columbia, we are working to ensure that we are on the cutting edge of innovation

and, at the same time, that individuals have all of the advantages possible in adopting

EVs.

That’s why we are number one in Canada in EV adoption.

Government Position

on Pipeline Projects

Larry Neufeld : The NDP government strongly opposes a northern pipeline, yet they’ve now flip-flopped

and fully support expanding TMX, including dredging in the Burrard Inlet.

It begs the question, in my mind: why is this government perfectly fine with shipping

oil through Vancouver but dead set against economic opportunity for the North?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Let’s remember who led the opposition to the North Coast transmission line. He’s

apparently dead set in favour of electricity for Vancouver but opposed to ensuring

that the North has access to that electricity.

In case I missed something….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Adrian Dix : In case I missed something, the TMX pipeline has been built.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Member for Richmond Centre, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The TMX pipeline has been built. The people of B.C. and the province of B.C. have

said that it’s reasonable that it be fully used. Why? Because it cost $34 billion

of public funds, $18 billion of which was a public subsidy.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Eighteen billion dollars of it was a public subsidy. What we’ve said….

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix : Because of me? The member has got to be kidding.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix : The member from Kelowna is yelling and screaming, but the fact of the matter is that

we have taken a consistent position.

Now, on the northern pipeline, there is no proponent. There is no route. There is

no possibility of contracts for something that would cost the moon to use. There’s

no market. It would require tens of billions in public subsidy. By the way, it would

involve the lifting of a tanker ban on the coast, which enables tens of billions of

dollars in investment in B.C.

We’re a government that believes in investment in B.C. We support investment in B.C.

We don’t vote against it at every possible opportunity.

We are going to continue to defend British Columbia all around and ensure that British

Columbians benefit in the wealth we need in this province.

Mobile Crisis Response Unit

in Langley-Willowbrook Area

Jody Toor : Last time I asked the minister about Car 67, she dodged a broken promise, said they

would speak to the community. Well, the community is speaking. Police, nurses, mayors,

councils and families have been sounding the alarm for a year while the NDP sits on

their hands. It’s not their fault that this government exploded the debt and mismanaged

the economy so badly that the crisis team can’t get funded.

Will the minister stop stalling and implement Car 67 for my residents of Langley-Willowbrook

today, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question and for raising the really important role

that this program plays in communities.

It’s making a real difference by pairing police officers with health care workers

to ensure that responses are appropriate for people that are experiencing crises.

This is helping people to get better access to supports, to get the help that they

need.

As has been discussed with the member previously, decisions are still being undertaken,

and the program is under review. We are very proud of the work that’s being done by

the officers, the nurses and the mental health workers in this.

We’re going to continue to provide these supports for communities, and I look forward

to talking with the member further.

[2:35 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Bruce Banman : I stand on a point of order.

I know that debate gets heated in here, Mr. Speaker, but I’d like you to give the

Forests Minister an opportunity to apologize and retract his remarks. Or are personal

insults and name-calling now part of the regular question period order here?

The Speaker : The Chair will ask the Minister of Forests if he intended to impugn the member opposite.

If he did, then he can withdraw and apologize.

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I had no intention, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw my comment.

Petitions

Tony Luck : I rise to present a petition signed by over 100 British Columbians, seasonal Crown

land leaseholders at Harrison Lake, who are concerned about a broken property assessment

and lease rental system. These citizens own modest, off-grid cabins with no services

and no year-round access, yet they are being assessed like prime waterfront real estate.

Worse, these seasonal leaseholders are being discriminated against. While permanent

Crown tenants are protected by the Residential Tenancy Act rent caps, seasonal tenants

are hit with uncapped 60 to 75 percent lease increases with no….

The Speaker : Thank you, Member. We’ll accept the petition.

Tony Luck : You’ll accept the petition? Thank you very much.

George Anderson : I rise to present a petition on behalf of the UBC Alma Mater Society, whose representatives

are with us in the gallery today.

I would like to recognize Solomon Yi-Kieran, vice-president, external affairs; Kareem

Hassib, associate vice-president, external affairs; Riley Huntley, president.

This petition, dated October 1, 2025, represents 15,000 students of the University

of British Columbia and transit advocates across Metro Vancouver. The signatories

request that the…

The Speaker : Thank you, Member.

George Anderson : …provincial government expedite work on the business case for the future extension

of the SkyTrain to UBC and prioritize pursuing joint funding with the federal government.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 72 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 72 — Appointment of

Special Committee

on Police Complaints

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 72 of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which

appoints a special committee on police complaints.

[That a Special Committee on Police Complaints be appointed to conduct an audit respecting

the outcome or resolution of randomly selected complaints and investigations, pursuant

section 51.2 of the Police Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367).

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition

be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees

any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees

all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation

until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House within one year of its appointment,

and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports

with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of

the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present

all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Elenore Sturko (Convener), Garry Begg , Steve Kooner , Macklin McCall and Darlene Rotchford .]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 73 on the order paper.

Motion 73 — Membership Changes to

Finance Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 73 of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which

amends the membership of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

[That Elenore Sturko and Jennifer Blatherwick be removed as members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this House, I call committee stage on Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act.

Then in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill

25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 21 — Attorney General

Statutes Amendment Act ( N o . 2), 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Members, I think we’ll call a quick recess while we get the minister’s team together.

The committee recessed from 2:40 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair : Okay, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we have been contemplating

committee stage of Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025,

and we are on clause 10.

On clause 10 (continued) .

Steve Kooner : We were on clause 10, and I was asking a series of questions. I’d just like to continue

that.

In reference to

section 8.1 in clause 10 here, we talked about consultation quite

a bit. This is beyond consultation. This is in terms of what sort of research and

analysis legally was done in regards to provisions, specifically in regards to

section

8.1.

The question is: what legal analysis did the Ministry of the Attorney General complete

to ensure that the PGT’s expanded fiduciary authority does not create new liabilities

for the Crown or expose the PGT to claims for breach of trust arising from inconsistent

statutory mandates?

I want to know the extent of research or legal analysis that was done to make sure

there are no new legal liabilities as a result of this expanded framework that we’re

seeing here under clause 10, particularly

section 8.1.

Hon. Niki Sharma : With this one particular section, if you remember, we talked about it earlier. It’s

just putting that

section from the Infants Act into this bill and the PGT Act to make

it consolidated. In that context, it doesn’t create any new liabilities.

To also extend that question to all of this bill, I think you could say, the changes

that are related to Indigenous authorities having the ability to use the PGT for property

guardianship for their children…. If you think about it in terms of the legal responsibilities

of the PGT, nothing changes.

[2:50 p.m.]

They still have the same standard of property guardianship related to what would be,

then, those Indigenous children that were under that Indigenous authority before.

From that context, it is the same kind of, I guess you would say, liability risk or

legal standards that existed before.

Steve Kooner : I thank the Attorney General for that answer. It’s assuring that, in terms of the

entire legislation, the Attorney General is stating that there’s been some legal research,

legal analysis done for the whole piece of legislation that we’re dealing with here.

My concern here is there’s money involved, and there’s property involved, and a lot

of these different provisions deal with a lot of substantive matter. I appreciate

that legal analysis, and it would be a similar answer to all the questions, but because

a lot of these clauses involve different subject matter, it’s very important to make

sure that we go through each of these clauses to make sure that legal analysis, the

protections against liability and how they relate to each clause have been dealt with.

We are dealing with a fiduciary obligation, we are dealing with proprietary interests,

and we are dealing with certain cultural customs as well. We have seen case law. We

have seen litigation. This area of law is fairly litigious in terms of involving children,

custody and guardianship. We see a lot of this litigation happening in the court.

That’s one of the reasons family court is really busy.

It’s very important, if we’re seeing this type of trend, this type of litigation that’s

happening…. It’s happening a lot, and the courtrooms are seeing it. Sometimes it takes

a long time to get a courtroom. We want to make sure that for each of these provisions

that are going to touch upon an area that may involve potential litigation, concerns

have been addressed to each one of these issues popping up in these clauses.

We’ve dealt with the previous bill that was before here. This area of law in Bill

21 does involve a lot of litigation cases before the courts in terms of children,

guardianship, property rights, access to children. For that reason, I need to ask

these questions, moving forward, just to make sure that we have….

Sometimes the Attorney General’s department could probably say that they have the

same answer; that they did a full analysis, did the consultation on this whole bill

and they addressed each thing. But something may pop up from just a curious question

on one of these clauses and said that might be a thing that we may have missed, or

we kind of turned our eyes and ears to it, but we do need a further, more fulsome

explanation.

That’s why I’m probing these sections in detail, because it does involve fiduciary

obligations where essentially the government or the PGT is operating in kind of a

blind trust type of setting where the child is just wholeheartedly relying on the

PGT. We want to just make sure all of these clauses that are within this bill are

specifically dealt with.

But with that said, I do appreciate the answer that was provided. I will go on to

my next question.

We spent a little bit of time in the last session talking about why there was an age

requirement to the age of 27 when a child actually reaches the age of majority in

this province at 19. What was explained was essentially that that’s an extra tool

for children that may want to get some extra help for a number of years to deal with

their property affairs.

I appreciated that answer at the time, but I have a follow-up question in regards

to the explanation that was provided last time. I just want to make sure there was

actual precedent for this specific age being a discretionary age existing to the age

of 27.

[2:55 p.m.]

The question is: can the Attorney General point to any jurisdiction in Canada where

age 27 is used as a standard threshold for state-managed youth financial supports

related to property?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Thank you. I appreciate the question.

B.C. has always been a very standout and unique leader with respect to what we do

to provide supports for children that are 19 and over, when they become that age of

majority, and they were on supports of the government while they were children. That

shows up in many different ways.

One was more recently, when we changed our CFCSA to allow for better supports for

somebody after 19 up to 27. That’s to ensure that they’re supported with the supports

they need for longer, because I think any parent would say that after somebody’s 19,

it doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t need more of those supports continuing

on. That’s the same, although the 20 years that’s found in this piece of legislation,

I think as we talked about earlier, hasn’t changed from before.

These amendments don’t change that year of 27, but it is in line with what B.C. has

shown as a major importance of leadership with respect to these children that have

grown up vulnerable or hit 19, and they still need more supports up to the age of

27. I’m not aware of another jurisdiction that does it to the extent that we do.

Steve Kooner : I thank the Attorney General for that explanation. The question was answered that

there is no known other jurisdiction currently that has the age limit to 27.

[3:00 p.m.]

Okay, so I’ll flow to my next question now.

Now, a theme here is that in addition to the PGT, we are also dealing with subject

matter that deals with Indigenous authorities and Indigenous culture. Our legal system,

in how it’s designed currently, looks at individual rights, individual property rights.

But when you look at, maybe, cultural practices, there may be an emphasis on collective

rights.

This turns my mind to kind of look at…. I know explanation was provided out there.

Actually, it states in the legislation that this legislation will consider customs,

culture and traditions.

When we have a legal framework here that is focused on individual rights, individual

children and their proprietary rights, but then we are trying to bring that system

to coincide with Indigenous issues, Indigenous children and Indigenous cultural customs,

how does this piece of legislation take all of that into consideration and make it

all work? That’s the question.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think it would help us answer if we knew which clause specifically in this — I

think we’re on clause 10 — the member is referring to.

Steve Kooner : I believe there was one

section in here that talked about Indigenous children.

Well, I don’t see it here, but this does talk about fiduciary obligations and money

matters, which involve individual rights. That is spoken about in these first paragraphs

here, 8.1, and the money discussion continues in 8.2. All this stuff talks about money,

individual property and that kind of stuff.

A theme of this legislation is also dealing with Indigenous children. Now we’re looking

at these sections here that talk about the fiduciary obligation and that talk about

the property as the trustee will be handling it. How do these sections jibe with that?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I thank the member for trying to pin it down to a clause. It seems like maybe a general

answer would be more applicable here, which is that the agreements between the PGT

and the Indigenous authority would be a place where you could have a discussion between

the two about the cultural sensitivities or decision-making that they would want to

have specifically applied for those specific children.

Steve Kooner : I thank the Attorney General for trying to answer the question, but we’re looking

at these sections, like 8.1. When I read them, speaking about “any money or other

property of the child held,” this whole system under the PGT is based upon individual

rights, individual property and case law on all of that.

My concern here is that all of this talks about the PGT and talks about money and

other property, but the case law that backs all that stuff, when you look at it and

you’re dealing with the PGT, is dealing with individual property.

Now we also have to consider in these sections of clause 10 that a big intent behind

this legislation is to address Indigenous children and their property. When you’ve

got a whole system based upon case law on, say, individual rights, and there’s less

case law, say, on collective property rights, how do you make this system work?

When legal professionals will be looking at this — say they’re involved with this

legislation — how will they navigate it? What they’re going to have recourse to is

case law based upon the common law, and with the Indigenous collective cultural practices,

there may not be that much law.

I know the Attorney General tried to answer it, but I think it’s a very important

question to have an explanation, quite in detail, because we are now heading in a

direction where, say, some legal practitioners looking at this may want to rely on

some PGT case law and how it’s being dealt with, but what they’re going to get is

common law stuff.

Here this legislation specifically requires that you must take into consideration,

when you’re looking at all these clauses, when you’re looking at clause 10, how it

applies to collective Indigenous property as well. The answer was done, but it seemed

like it was a pretty basic answer.

On the legal, technical stuff that comes out of this, when you’re actually looking

at it in an empirical way, we really need to kind of understand the underlying structure

to this clause and how it deals with collective rights. So I don’t know if there could

be a further explanation, because it is a very important point.

When we’re looking at these clauses, every single clause that we’re looking at, and

this one in particular, where it lays out discussion about property, money…. In our

understanding of clause 10, we have to bring in the Indigenous discussion here. The

difference is that here we may not have that much case law. How do we navigate this

clause here, clause 10, when we’re talking about individual money and property rights?

The trustee has to handle that.

Let me add that the trustee has fiduciary obligations to handle that property with

utmost care, because a child doesn’t know anything about that property. Here you may

be lacking case law. We have to make sure, when we’re debating today, that we come

up with a proper understanding on how this will all work out. I don’t know if a further

explanation can be provided.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : In terms of the context of when this would happen…. In order for the PGT to take

on a role for property guardianship for the child, it’s up to that Indigenous authority.

It’s a by-choice process.

If the Indigenous authority chooses not to use the property guardianship of the PGT,

that’s up to them. If they sign an agreement where they want the PGT to take on the

property guardianship of children, they understand the regime under which the PGT

operates. That means that their role is to act in the best interests of that child

and all the entitlements that they would be, as an individual property owner, entitled

to. That’s the role of the PGT, and that’s what they would take on for the child.

The question about collective rights versus personal rights. Once the PGT takes on

the role of property guardianship for the child, their role is very clearly set out

in the act, and part of that is how to operate in the best interests of the child.

That’s an aspect where they would take in the cultural components of that child. If

it was an Indigenous child, then that would be an important aspect for the PGT to

consider when making those decisions on the best interests of that child.

In terms of the collective rights, it’s up to the Indigenous authority and the Indigenous

nation whether or not they want to use the PGT for this. That’s their choice.

Steve Kooner : That was a more thorough answer, and it sheds a lot more light than the previous

answer.

I’d just like to get a clarification of my understanding of the answer, and then I’d

like to add to my question. What I understand is that there’s a PGT system, under

clause 10 here, that’s going to manage property, manage money. In terms of incorporating

Indigenous children and dealing with Indigenous authorities, it would be entirely

up to the Indigenous authority to give consent whether it wants to operate within

this PGT system.

My understanding is that if the consent is provided, the system that would be applied

would be a system that has not only this piece of legislation but also interpretive

common law, case law that is currently existing, which has a heavy focus on individual

property. That will be the law that will be relied on because there’s less law in

regards to, say, collective rights or collective proprietary interests. Is my understanding

accurate to state that?

[3:15 p.m.]

Basically, consent can be given from an Indigenous authority to the PGT. When that

consent is given, part of that consent is going to be to operate within the framework

of the PGT, which relies on a legal framework not only in, say, clause 10 here and

whatever provisions are provided here but also to interpret that, maybe at times relying

on common law, case law that supports this legislation.

Is my understanding accurate that that’s how it’s going to work once consent is given?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ll just start by saying that the PGT is a statutory body. The powers of the PGT

are derived from the statute, part of which is the bill and the amendments we’re seeking.

But then, just like anybody, they’re subject to case law that may or may not impact

their function or working, whether it’s to do with statutory

interpretations about

property guardianship or fiduciary duties or anything that they may be subject to

in the law as it evolves in the courts, in the common law. Then they would be subject

to them.

I think, based on the question asked, I guess the answer would be that generally,

yes, that’s true.

Steve Kooner : I think that question and the answer will be one of the most important questions

and answers throughout this piece of legislation, because it does involve two areas

of the law kind of converging, and the system is trying to incorporate another system

as well. That answer will serve the discussion in a fruitful way.

[3:20 p.m.]

The next question. I just asked a question, a couple of questions ago, more specifically

to 8.1 here in clause 10. I asked about whether there was any legal analysis that

was done for legal risks as a result of this extra framework of dealing with fiduciary

obligations here, as first listed in 8.1 in clause 10. What was explained was, essentially,

what appears to be, to my understanding, that after the legal analysis, there should

be no legal risk, liability, but that goes to the financial aspect.

Now, there’s also another aspect. The other aspect is there might be a financial aspect.

So the legal aspect and the financial aspect…. When you’re giving a framework, you’re

codifying that framework in a more significant extent for the PGT, and that may involve

a lot more.

My next question is this. What modelling has the Ministry of Attorney General done

to project the long-term fiscal exposure created by expanding trustee powers related

to investment, property and these money issues for children and now Indigenous children

as well? What modelling has been done?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Yes, there was an analysis and thinking done about any fiscal implications, and there

are none. The reason is that the regime is set up in such a way as the PGT has listed,

I think, its public fee

schedule related to when they take on the property guardianship

of a child. Usually those fees are subtracted from that work for that individual child.

In this context, there would be no added cost in terms of managing it.

Steve Kooner : I get that the PGT has its own fees that it charges. We had a discussion last time

where we were discussing…. Sometimes accounts have to be given to the court, and then

the PGT deducts their fees as a result. But doesn’t the PGT get some of its funding

from the government?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : Chair, I’d just seek your guidance on understanding where this is rooted in the clause

that we are currently talking about. Then, if I can get that guidance, I’m happy to

answer.

The Chair : Richmond-Queensborough.

Steve Kooner : This will probably go to the discussion about the fees. Later on in the clause, there’s

a discussion about the fees, primarily in 8.7 of clause 10, where it talks about fees

and accounting and all that. It also talks about it in 8.6.

The Attorney General just provided an explanation, saying that most of the adverse

administrative costs will be taken care of by these fees. The PGT gets its funding

from the fees. Why my question is relevant is…. If it’s getting all of its funding

from these fees, it’s important to know that there is no other funding. That’s why

the question was asked.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Right now about one-third of the funding for the PGT comes from public funds, and

two-thirds is from these fee structures.

You have to remember that property guardianship for children isn’t the only role that

they play. They also have adult guardianship arrangements and things like that. That’s

generally how it works.

Steve Kooner : Just a follow-up question to that. Out of the one-third of public funds that fund

this system, how much of that is related to the children that we’re talking about

in clause 10?

Hon. Niki Sharma : You know, I’m happy to answer questions like these in an estimates debate, because

this is more of a funding and budgetary question rather than a legal question related

to the clauses that we have before us. He’s asking for very specific line items related

to a budget that I don’t have before me at this stage.

I’m happy to go back to discussing the bill.

Steve Kooner : I appreciate the honesty from the Attorney General’s department that they don’t have

the answer, but there’s a specific reason that I was talking about these sections.

The Attorney General asked me to go to specific sections to mention where it was discussed

about fees. I brought that up too. There are specific sections, within clause 10,

that talk about fees.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’ve had relevant debate today and said that there are not going to be any adverse

effects on the administrative costs of the PGT as a result of this legislation. Then

I asked a follow-up question: is there a certain part of the budget of the PGT that

relies on public funds? The answer that was supplied was that the money for the extra

framework will come from the fees.

I wanted to know about the public fund. So it’s highly relevant. It’s not just a budgetary

discussion. This actual clause talks about fees, and it talks about costs.

I would assume that we would be here ready to kind of talk about these items. I’ve

definitely spent a lot of time on my own end, without staff, trying to figure out

the right questions to ask here. There are probably a lot of people listening. That’s

fine. Maybe an answer can be provided at a later date, but I think it’s highly relevant.

For now, I will move to the next question.

Okay. Another question I did ask about clause 10 last time. We got to discussing how

the system works. There’s going to be some accounting done by the PGT. They’re going

to deduct their fees, and then they’re going to send their account, or they’re going

to send the proprietary interest through the court. We discussed that portion.

What we did not discuss was that when anybody, any fiduciary authority, is dealing

with property and fiduciary obligations, and they’re cutting their own money out of

an account, there might be a potential conflict of interest. I know when there are

certain professionals that deal with trust accounts, there’s an extra onus on those

professionals to make sure that if they had agreements, those agreements were properly

explained and that people had an opportunity to properly understand those.

At the end of the day, there will be a trust account, and money will be deducted from

that. It’s not as straightforward as just saying: “Here’s my bill; please pay me.”

There are fiduciary legal principles that come into play, and high ethical obligations

come into play as well.

In this case, the PGT will be deducting their fees according to the fee portion, I

believe, in discussion in the

section 8.6. How do those sections reconcile conflict

of interest into those provisions? That’s my next question.

What study was done, what analysis was done to make sure there will be no conflict

of interest when children’s property is dealt with, when you’re looking at accounting

of fees?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : As trustees, they are fiduciaries, so they have all the law related to fiduciaries,

and their obligations are at play. They’re statutory creatures, the PGT, so if you

refer to the legislation that guides them, you can look under 23, and it says pretty

clearly exactly how payments are to be made and gives details about that. There’s

a fee

schedule that is public that sets out the fee structures related to their services,

so it’s very transparent.

Barring any of those safeguards…. The PGT is a trusted organization, so they sit in

a very particular spot that’s different than a fee-for-service model, which were some

of the examples in the question. As such, they have all these statutory, legal and

transparency obligations related to their work. Then if there ever were a problem,

there is an ability to have the account reviewed by court.

Steve Kooner : Okay. I’m just going to change the line of questioning here just a little bit.

Now, we’re going to be dealing with children. The old definition was “young persons.”

Now we’re dealing with the definition “child” or “children.”

We’re dealing with a bit of a transition here because there was the old PGT legislation

that already exists, and now we’re updating it with this legislation. We’re on clause

10. That really is a very lengthy clause, has a lot in it, and it’s one of the bigger

clauses within this piece of legislation.

It’s important to know how many children would actually get affected by this and how

many children are in the system that are going to be affected by this, these transition

rules or these new provisions here that are updated.

How many existing children or young persons currently under PGT supervision fall into

situations that will require transition into the new regime? How many children are

there currently operating with the status quo but are going to be transitioned into

these new provisions?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : In terms of transitional provisions, I think I’m going to take a little bit of time

to explain this, so we can understand that there isn’t actually that much need for

transitional provisions, because we have the PGT regime that’s in place right now

that sets the standards for property guardianship.

The PGT would like to have this additional ability to be able to form agreements with

Indigenous authorities, through what we’ve set forward in the bill, to be able to

take on property guardianship for kids that may be under Indigenous jurisdiction.

So it doesn’t change the PGT’s role or ability or the work that it does in its role.

In terms of any transition of kids from one system to another, that’s…. Maybe the

better way to look at it is that it enables the PGT, through the agreements with Indigenous

authorities, to do the work that they do right now but for those Indigenous children.

So that’s part of the way of looking at any transition.

The PGT, at any given time, has about 3,000 kids under property guardianship, and

I think that fluctuates over time. So we expect that with this ability…. I don’t think

it will be much different than the number of kids they have. It’s just where the kids

are coming from or where their role steps in.

[3:45 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Just a clarification in regards to the number of children. The number was mentioned,

3,000. Is there an additional number to the 3,000 that are the young adults from 19

to the age of 27, or is that 3,000 number inclusive of that age group as well? If

it’s inclusive, what proportion of the 3,000 is for 19- to 27-year-olds?

Hon. Niki Sharma : There are about 50 in that category, young adults.

Steve Kooner : Okay. Next question.

Now, in clause 10, we are dealing with accounts, fees and the PGT taking what’s owed

to them and then dealing with the property. Why it’s more…. We’re dealing with a fiduciary

obligation. We are dealing with Indigenous children or young adults that actually

need more care in terms of their property. They still can’t handle their affairs.

Another thing that I’d like to point out is that in clause 10, in

section 8.7(2),

not only does the PGT have a right to deduct fees and commissions, but they also have

a right to deduct other amounts payable, right? There’s some discretion there in what

they can deduct. Now you’re dealing with….

I appreciate the answers earlier that there’s a fee schedule, and it’s available to

the public. But the concern here is that these provisions not only have to do with

fees and commissions; they also have to do with other amounts, pursuant to this legislation

here. We are dealing with vulnerable children that may be young adults between the

ages of 19 and 27, as well as Indigenous children.

Say that some of these vulnerable children or young adults disagree with the amounts

that are being put forward in some accounting. They may be fees, and there might be

some commissions, but then there are some other amounts. But they don’t agree with

those other amounts.

Is there some sort of review mechanism that can stop the PGT from deducting the other

amounts category?

Hon. Niki Sharma : That review mechanism, and I think I mentioned it in a couple of previous answers,

is found in (2)(b), which is that you can have the accounts reviewed under the Supreme

Court.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Steve Kooner : Okay. With clause 11, it seems to be fairly short in comparison to the last one.

It just states that the following heading is added before

section 9. But when you

look at the actual heading and what it states, it requires some extra scrutiny. It

refers to division 3, “Financial Powers, Duties and Functions and Related Trustee

or Other Matters.” Sometimes it’s just a drafting issue, but sometimes you can take

some meaning from the titles as well.

Here, as we were discussing in clause 10, we’re talking about fiduciary obligations.

We were talking about accounting. We were talking about fees, other amounts, commissions.

We were talking about vulnerable children. What was kind of highlighted throughout

that discussion was that there needs to be some proper scrutiny because of these fiduciary

obligations. There need to be some review mechanisms.

Now we’re going further into that discussion here in clause 11, as I listed what the

title actually states. I have some questions in regard to clause 11. First of all,

why put this specific wording in a title? Why must it be added into this clause?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : The reason for this new heading is to separate the sections of the act from the new

division 2, which are related specifically to the PGT acting as property guardianship

for children. The different descriptions in there are to describe the sections.

Steve Kooner : I appreciate the answer specifying that there will be a differentiation between the

clauses before this clause and now this clause moving forward and maybe some subsequent

clauses. But, in addition to providing a differentiation, does this help to provide

some meaning to the subsequent clauses after this particular one?

Hon. Niki Sharma : In any statute, headings are not meant to have…. It’s the content of the clauses

or the sections that are the meaning, not the heading.

Steve Kooner : I think that’s it for this one.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Steve Kooner : Clause 12 is also a relatively short clause. What we are dealing with here is sections

17(1) and (4) as well as sections 18(2)(a)(ii) and 19(2) “are amended by striking

out ‘young person’ wherever it appears and substituting ‘child.’

We had discussed this similar thing in a prior clause, where I was asking questions

along the lines of why it was done. It was explained that this was done to make it

consistent with other statutes or other pieces of legislation. Now we’re running into

the same or similar substituting of “young person” with “child.”

First of all, my question here is…. I thought we dealt with just changing the definition

earlier, so how come this piece of legislation deals with this again?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The change from young person to child is the same reason that we made the changes

earlier on in this bill. It’s just to keep consistent with language.

Steve Kooner : Just a follow-up question.

I understand that there are other statutes and a lot of the other statutes, like maybe,

perhaps, the Family Law Act may be using the term “child,” so I get all of that. But

a follow-up question I have is that…. I understand that we have similar legislation

that we have to make this one consistent with, but I brought up an issue earlier about

common law and how we also have to look at some common law because it exists with

PGT.

Now, with this piece of legislation, as I mentioned in the last clause, we’re going

to bring Indigenous children into the framework, provided that Indigenous authorities

provide that consent. But part of the consent is to allow the property of those Indigenous

children to operate within this PGT framework that will operate with the existing

case law that we have. It may not have some existing case law that may be dealing

with children, Indigenous children and their property. So the system that we have

is based upon the common law we have now.

[3:55 p.m.]

That leads me to my question. We have taken a definition of “child,” inserting it

where “young person” appears. What analysis was done to make sure that that definition

is coinciding with any sort of definition that Indigenous law may have, or Indigenous

customs may have, to change this definition to that?

We’re inserting “child” specifically because there’s other legislation out there that

now uses the word “child.” That’s the reason here. Another aspect of this legislation

is we’re trying to bring Indigenous children’s property into the fold of this regulatory

framework. I don’t know if this is the case, but there may be…. Another word for young

person may be used in the Indigenous context versus this one.

I guess the first question is: what sort of analysis was done to make sure that “child”

not only represents making this legislation consistent with other legislation but

also with Indigenous customs and culture and any sort of legal precedent there?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’re not changing any

definitions here. “Young person” and “child” meant the same

thing. It’s just for a matter of consistency in using words that are used in all acts.

It means a person that is under the age of 19. In that context, I think it covers

every child that is under that age.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Steve Kooner : In clause 13, we are dealing with consequential amendments, and we’re talking about

the Adoption Act here. More specifically, it refers to “Section 3.2 of the Adoption

Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 5, is repealed and the following substituted.”

Then we have a paragraph here, and this is a very important paragraph in light of

the discussion that we’ve been having in the last few questions. It talks about the

self-government principle.

“This Act, to the extent the provisions of this Act relate to the adoption of Indigenous

children who are in the continuing custody of a director of child protection, must

be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle that Indigenous peoples

have an inherent right of self-government, including self-determination, that is recognized

and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and by the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

I have some specific questions in regards to this section. The first question will

be a general one, just asking the purpose and intent of this particular provision.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : The only change that’s being made here from the current piece of legislation, as

it stands, is pretty small.

If we remember, in clause 6.6, there was a removal for the default guardianship. The

default guardianship provisions are related to what happens if there’s nobody protecting

the property guardianship. Then the default is the PGT, those powers. We removed the

director of child protection as personal guardian just to make sure it was clear the

default was PGT.

This amendment under this

section is consequential by removing 3.2(b), which is another

reference to the director of child protection as personal guardian. So it was necessary,

because of clause 6.6, to also do this in this current clause.

Steve Kooner : It’s important to mention in this section, under clause 13, in 3.2, that references

are being made to federal law, particularly the constitution, and also international

legal principles. You have federal law in the constitution,

section 35 of the Constitution

Act, and then you have international, a United Nations declaration, in terms of legal

principles, in this. It states that this provision must be interpreted and administered

with these principles in mind.

So it’s important to actually really…. I understand. I get the answer that the Attorney

General provided. It was just meant to kind of make…. What I got from the answer was

it doesn’t provide that significant of a change.

But when you do have references to, say, international legal principles, and you do

have references to the federal constitution of this country, you do have to kind of,

really, look into this legislation and see how it coincides with those legal principles

and that law, because there are also federal statutes that deal with children and,

specifically, Indigenous children. You know, there’s a bill — that was C-92 — that

deals with the federal Indigenous child welfare type of jurisdiction.

This particular provision says that we’ve got to respect the

interpretation through

that federal constitution as well as those legal principles. There is legislation

federally, and I just want to make sure…. Say we’re adopting this, and we’re also

incorporating federal constitutional law that exists, which means that you’ve got

to stay within your division of powers or jurisdiction.

Was a legal analysis done here to make sure that there would be no inconsistency with

what the federal government has done with Indigenous children and property protection?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : This

section is not new, so the only need for legal analysis that was done on this

section for this bill is what I mentioned before, which is a consequential amendment

because of clause 6.6.

Steve Kooner : Okay. I think that is it for this clause for me.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Steve Kooner : On clause 14, the first question I’d like to ask…. Clause 14 refers to…. Ssection

4(2) states that it’s repealed and the following is substituted.

For the record, we’re looking at subsection (2): “In addition to the authority under

subsection (1) (a), a director may, at the request of a director of child protection,

place a child for adoption with a person or persons selected by the director of child

protection, if the child is in the continuing custody of the director of child protection.”

I had a specific question here in regards to this clause. When I was reading these

provisions, I did see that there’s a director of child protection, but then there’s

also a director of adoption. How do those two things relate with each other when we

are looking at this particular clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma : They’re just different directors. The director of adoption is different than the

director of child services, and that’s a separate regime.

With respect to this clause, the only change was similar to clause 13, which was a

consequential amendment because of clause 6.6, which removes the director of child

protection as part of the consequential measures that were necessary.

Steve Kooner : Does it, through this clause…? It mentions both the director of child protection

and…. Does it amend any sort of obligations or any duties amongst, say, the director

of child protection and director of adoption? Is there any change as a result of this

provision here?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No, it just removes that one reference that’s currently found in that section.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

Steve Kooner : Clause 15 is also a smaller clause. We are dealing with subsection 7(2), which is

repealed and the following is substituted: “Subsection (1) does not apply in relation

to an Indigenous child who is in the continuing custody of a director of child protection.”

Why does it not apply to an Indigenous child that’s in continuing custody of the director

of child protection?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : The way this would apply…. Again, it’s another consequential amendment along the

same lines that we’ve been speaking about in the last two. I think, to the member’s

question, the reason that it doesn’t have any actual consequence in terms of what

consultation would happen is because in this section, the way it’s worded, before

placing an Indigenous child for adoption, these are the consultation and cooperation

requirements.

There also are similar requirements under the Child, Family and Community Service

Act. That has similar consultation requirements. So they’re contained in both acts.

That’s why that subsection (2) disapplies the adoption provisions to that.

The only change in this bill is specifically related to just the consequential amendment

of the same one as “director of child protection,” removing that reference.

Steve Kooner : I thank the Attorney General for providing the explanation that it’s just a consequential

amendment.

I do have a follow-up question based upon what I was hearing from the Attorney General,

it being consequential. What safeguards exist to ensure that Indigenous children in

continuing custody are treated in accordance with Indigenous law and community practices?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is pretty far beyond the consequential amendment that’s related to this provision,

which is quite narrow.

I will say that this provision that’s been in place already is the framework for some

of the things that the member is talking about, so when it’s an Indigenous child that’s

up for adoption or for child protection, the consult and cooperation requirements

are that you work with the Indigenous governments to figure out what the plan is.

Steve Kooner : Just one more follow-up question to that. When an Indigenous child that’s in continuing

custody, pursuant to this provision or whatever framework exists throughout clause

15…. How will the continuity or the protection for the Indigenous children that results

as a result of this particular clause be communicated subsequently to any sort of

adoption authorities and Indigenous organizations that may take over later on?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’re getting beyond the scope of the amendments that are before us, which are very

narrow and consequential. Nothing about the bill or proposals that I have are about,

to the member’s questions, the deep policy analysis or what happens if, because they’re

so narrow in what they’re trying to do. In that context, I don’t have answers related

to the scope of how MCFD operates in different situations related to Indigenous children,

but I’m happy to answer related to the amendments that are before us.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Steve Kooner : Clause 16 is also a shorter clause. It’s a couple of lines. It refers to…. “Section

13 (3) is amended by striking out ‘or a director of child protection is the child’s

personal guardian under

section 51 of the Infants Act.’”

In regards to this, as a result of the striking out, what is the effect of removing

this wording?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is another one that’s consequential based on 6.6. It removes the ones that are

in….

The last few that we talked about are just the policy and drafters making sure that

anything that is connected to the change in 6.6 is also amended so that any of the

rules that were there before, related to that, are…. There are consequential amendments

related to that.

Steve Kooner : Just a follow-up question to that answer. As a result of striking this out, does

this create any gap for children whose guardianship status was previously under the

Infants Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Steve Kooner : Clause 17. We have a new heading here, “Child, Family and Community Service Act.”

We’re dealing with

section 50.1 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C.

Chapter 46 is amended.

We’ve got another amendment, and it’s amended by repealing a section. So sub (

a) states:

“by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following.”

What gets substituted is this. “Subject to

section 50.06, a director may request a

director of adoption to place a child for adoption if the child is in the continuing

custody of the director, and (

b) in subsection (2) by striking out ‘subsection (1)

(a)’ and substituting ‘subsection (1).’”

In regards to this, I just have a couple of questions. Are there any transitional

arrangements for cases initiated under the former version of

section 51?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : There are no children under the current act that would fall into that category of

a child where the director of the child’s personal guardian, under

section 51 of the

Infants Act…. There’s no such child that’s under the director of child protection

that would fit under that.

Part of the reason why we made these amendments is that MCFD doesn’t use this authority.

They prefer to use their act in terms of that. This is another consequential amendment

that’s related to the changes in clause 6.6.

Steve Kooner : I take from that there aren’t going to be any consequential effects, but I still

have to put this out there and ask this question. Will this amendment to this particular

clause create any procedural delays?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Steve Kooner : Clause 18 deals with

section 51, and it’s amended by striking out “given by

section

7 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and sections 12, 14 and 16 of the Infants

Act” and substituting “under Division 2 of

Part 2 of the Public Guardian and Trustee

Act and

section 14 of the Infants Act.”

There are a lot of references there. I’ve just got a couple of questions on this one.

Does this change alter any rights or obligations for children, guardians or Indigenous

authorities?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This one is very minor. It is just related to fixing up references. It was necessary

to remove that “given by

section 7 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act” and replace

it with “under Division 2 of

Part 2 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and

section

14 of the Infants Act” just to fix up the references because of the amendments earlier.

Steve Kooner : I understand we’re fixing pieces of the legislation here, but just one last question

on this. Was there any sort of impact analysis undertaken to identify any unintended

consequences in ongoing matters that are currently going on right now?

Hon. Niki Sharma : There will be no consequences from this amendment.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

[4:25 p.m.]

Steve Kooner : Clause 19 seems to be quite brief. It just repeals

section 51.1(3). Just a few questions

on this one. Can the Attorney General specify which functions under this clause are

not eligible or don’t need to actually be used? They’re being repealed. There’s a

part of this clause that is being repealed, but it served certain functions in the

original statute. What functions of that are of no use now, moving forward?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is related to the changes that were made to

section 7.1 of the PGT Act, and

it removes the language that the PGT is appointed by court order or enactment as a

child’s guardian.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

As a result of that, it was determined that

section 51.1(3) was no longer required.

Steve Kooner : It seems to not have any consequential effects, and there’s a provision. This provision

wasn’t needed anymore due to the circumstances described by the Attorney General.

But could there be any sort of procedural delays as a result of changing up the system

here?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

Steve Kooner : In clause 20, we’re amending

section 79. What we’re specifically looking at is subsection

(a).

“By repealing paragraph (

h) and substituting the following: necessary to enable the

Public Guardian and Trustee to perform duties and exercise powers as a child’s property

guardian under this act or in other circumstances referred to in

section 6.4 of the

Public Guardian and Trustee Act, or to assess whether the circumstances for property

guardianship referred to in 6.6 of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act are present;

and (

b) by repealing paragraph (h.2) and substituting the following: made to a director

of adoption to facilitate the adoption of a child if the child is in the continuing

custody of a director.”

This clause, or this one

section that’s being amended, seems to be quite wordy, and

there seem to be some mechanics here. The first question is: can the Attorney General

explain how this works?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This amendment will expand the circumstances in which the CFCSA director may disclose

information to the PGT necessary to enable the PGT to perform duties and exercise

powers in all circumstances where PGT is property guardian. It’s also related to the

changes we made earlier in terms of disclosure of information.

Steve Kooner : Okay. From what was explained, this clause does have some sort of enabling authority

to it that allows you to do something. In carrying out the responsibility in regards

to this particular clause, what transparency mechanisms are there?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : The limits on these amendments are part of the whole…. I think the question is about

how we make sure that it’s the right amount of information but not too much and that

people are abiding by protection of privacy.

The key words are that the disclosure can only be limited to necessary to enable the

PGT to do those two things: to perform their duties or to assess circumstances related

to the pre-determination of property guardianship assessment that they may have to

do.

Also, if we remember, we talked about the earlier provision related to personal information

with the PGT. The same oversight provisions that apply to all personal information

in the province under FOIPPA and the Privacy Commissioner would apply.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

Steve Kooner : The important thing to mention about clause 21…. It’s referencing something that’s

kind of…. It’s related, but it’s unrelated. The previous sections that we referred

to of different legislation had to deal with…. A lot of the subject matter had to

do with children.

Now we’re moving on to looking at the Court Rules Act. Clause 21 deals with

section

1(2)(

f) of the Court Rules Act and is amended by adding the Public Guardian and Trustee

Act after the Power of Attorney Act.

If we didn’t have this provision in this, if we never put this provision in, what

would be missing in the current legislation? What situation would not be covered?

Hon. Niki Sharma : These amendments were considered to be an abundance of caution related to if there

were any changes that were needed to the Court Rules Act, related to any of the changes

made in this bill. So although there aren’t any specific things anticipated that I

could bring up, I think they were just in the case that there needed to be changes

to the Court Rules Act, there’s an ability.

Steve Kooner : If there aren’t any anticipated items that would be affected by adding this legislation

specifically, could this not have been just dealt with by the regulations?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The caution was related to the fact that, and we talked about this in other sections….

There were some sections of the Infants Act that were removed from the Infants Act

to the PGT Act. As a result of that move, I think, and for abundance of caution, we

wanted to make it clear that there would be this ability under the Court Rules Act.

Steve Kooner : Since we are dealing with the Court Rules Act and we’re referencing that and we’re

making a change to that…. You know, there are ongoing proceedings that happen in our

courts.

[4:35 p.m.]

That may be applying with the current legislation, but now if you want to modify the

Court Rules Act….It’s one thing how this change will affect this current legislation

that we’re dealing with in terms of Bill 21. It’s another thing how it will affect

a substantial provision that deals with court operation. Would there be any effect

on the current court proceedings as a result of this change?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No.

Steve Kooner : Does the Attorney General anticipate that although we’re making this change here

right now to modify the Court Rules Act, there may be any further changes needed to

the Court Rules Act to make this legislation in Bill 21 fully effective?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

Steve Kooner : Okay, clause 22. We’re moving on to another piece of legislation that gets amended.

What’s getting amended here is the Independent School Act, and the specific modification

is this. “Section 1 (1) of the Independent School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 216, is amended

by repealing the definition of ‘guardian’ and substituting the following: ‘guardian’

means a guardian within the Family Law Act.”

What we’ve seen in the past is we modified the definition of “young person” to change

it to “child” in references to the PGT. Now what we’re substituting here is the word

“guardian.” We already had the definition of “guardian,” but we’re substituting the

following. We’re actually redefining what “guardian” means. We’re saying that it means

the meaning within the Family Law Act.

The question to the Attorney General is: if we already had a definition of “guardian,”

why do we need to redefine the word “guardian” pursuant to the Family Law Act? What

specific changes is this going to bring about?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is another consequential amendment based on what was necessary from clause 6.6.

It removes a personal guardian within the meaning of the Infants Act because there

will no longer be a personal guardian authority within the Infants Act. It removes

that reference, and that’s it.

Steve Kooner : Thank you for that explanation.

The other thing is that when we are dealing with

definitions, we just want to make

sure that the laws are going to be consistent and it’s not going to affect anybody’s

rights.

Was there some sort of analysis done to make sure there would not be any transitional

inconsistencies between different legislation out there, and what mitigations are

in place to make sure that there aren’t any effects for sure?

Hon. Niki Sharma : There aren’t any that are currently under this regime under the Infants Act, so there

would not be any impacts.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

Steve Kooner : We spent some time talking about the subject matter of this next section, which is

the Infants Act. Clause 23 specifically deals with sections 12, 16 and 51 of the Infants

Act, RSBC 1996,

chapter 223, by repealing those three sections.

[4:40 p.m.]

My first question is: what was the need of having to repeal these three sections?

Hon. Niki Sharma : As we talked about, I think earlier on at 6.6, 8.1, 8.6 and 8.7, we’ve added those

sections of the Infants Act, with some minor changes, to the PGT Act. This is the

other side of that, which is the removal of those sections in the Infants Act.

Steve Kooner : As a result of making this particular change, does this affect any sort of timing

issues for cases to be looked at or subject matters to be looked at, any sort of procedural

issues or delay issues?

Hon. Niki Sharma : No.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

Steve Kooner : This particular clause deals with the School Act, and we’re doing work…. We’re looking

at the government trying to do an amendment here.

More specifically, in regards to…. “Section 1 (1) of the School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

c. 412, is amended by repealing the definition of ‘guardian’ and substituting the

following: ‘guardian’ means guardian within the meaning of the Family Law Act.”

Now, we’ve already seen a change in regard to guardian, and we’ve already seen that

change in regard to guardian in the Family Law Act in the other separate heading of

the Independent School Act.

Now, is there a reason why the references to guardian weren’t just changed in one

clause rather than having two separate clauses?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This is a separate act under the School Act, but it’s a similar amendment. It’s a

change of the definition of “guardian” to remove the personal guardian with the meaning

of the Infants Act.

Steve Kooner : I understand it’s two different acts, the Independent School Act and the School Act.

But could there not have been one clause that said “guardian” means guardian within

the meaning of the Family Law Act in all these different statutes? And could that

not have been a clause and just one clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think this is just for clarity, that it’s clear that it’s two separate acts. It’s

a choice of how you want to do it, but I think this just makes it very clear that

two acts are being amended.

Steve Kooner : Just a follow-up to that.

So it would not have made a difference if we had just one clause saying that this

definition changed in all the acts. That wouldn’t have made a difference. This is

just….

The government felt this provided more clarity. That’s why it was done this way. But

it wouldn’t have made a difference just to put it in one clause?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I think they’re just drafting conventions. As I know and I think we were talking

about, it doesn’t make a difference in the actual content. My understanding is that

it’s just drafting conventions to make sure, with these consequential amendments,

that every act in this example…. Every act is separate.

Clause 24 approved.

On clause 25.

Steve Kooner : Clause 25 deals with commencement, when this legislation is going to come into force.

Clause 25 states that “provisions of this act referred to in column 1 of the following

table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table.” So we have two columns

here, and then we’ve got a couple of items here listed.

[4:45 p.m.]

Column 1 states the provisions of this act, and then the commencement in column 2,

but there are two separate times for commencement, as we see in this table. Sections

1 and 2 will commence on the date of royal assent. Whenever the royal assent happens,

that’s when they’re going to come into force. But sections 3 to 24 are going to come

into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council — by regulation.

Why do clauses 1 and 2 come into force right away, by the date of royal assent, and

then clauses 3 to 24 come into force by regulation, at a later date?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This divides up the PGT amendments from the ICBC ones. The ICBC amendments will go

into force at the date of royal assent, and the other ones, from 3 to 24, related

to the PGT, will be by