Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 2, 2024

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 426

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M216 — Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024

T. Shypitka

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Firefighters Day and support for firefighters

S. Bond

Asian Heritage Month and heritage sites in Richmond

K. Greene

Buddhist Culture Day

T. Wat

Cloverdale Rodeo and Country Fair

M. Starchuk

Salish Sea

A. Olsen

Moving Forward Family Services and work by Gary Thandi

J. Sims

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and role of law enforcement

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Farnworth

Drug decriminalization program and impact on First Nations communities

E. Ross

Hon. J. Whiteside

Recruitment and retention of nurses and use of private agencies

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Funding for student nurses

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Drug decriminalization program and safe supply initiative

B. Banman

Hon. J. Whiteside

Cardiac care for patients at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital

A. Walker

Hon. A. Dix

Government action on issues in health care system

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

Government action on antisemitism and response to issues

M. Lee

Hon. L. Beare

Tabling Documents

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report and service plan, 2023-24

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C., annual report and service plan, 2023-24

Petitions

K. Falcon

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 28 — Time allotment for farewell addresses by retiring MLAs

Hon. R. Kahlon

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Legal Professions Act (continued)

M. Morris

E. Sturko

N. Letnick

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 25 — Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024 (continued)

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Rankin

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. K. Conroy

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2024

[The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Wat.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

E. Sturko: I’m pleased to introduce in the gallery today, although I don’t see

them…. They might be behind me. If they are, maybe the other side could give

them a wave. They are three groups of students from Hazelgrove Elementary

School, home of the Hazelgrove Hurricanes. Go, Hurricanes! They are, of

course, located in my riding of Surrey South.

Throughout the next hour, there will be three groups of 35 grade 5

students with their teachers, one of whom is AJ Dhaliwal, and several parent

chaperones.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very

welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today…. I’m so pleased to introduce them. These are about

30 members of the Service Employees International Union. They’re here to

meet with MLAs.

When a number of them came and met with me yesterday, they educated me

on the benefits of the card check or the single-step certification that we

brought in. They mentioned how they benefited from the

successorship.

I just want to say…. Please talk to them. These are the people who

provide a very, very important service for all of us to enjoy, in every

sector out there, especially in building maintenance.

I would say thank you very much for doing such an amazing job. Thank

you to all of you for continuing to lobby and continuing to talk about the

importance of protecting workers’ rights.

Please help me and give them a very warm welcome.

R. Merrifield: Well, I had shortened my introduction. After hearing the minister

speak, I think I can elongate it a little bit.

I have the pleasure of welcoming a constituent from Kelowna. Carmen

Rempel is in the House this morning.

She is absolutely a fierce advocate for individuals experiencing

homelessness in Kelowna and is recognized for having that deep value. She’s

a beacon of hope that change is possible, with her unwavering commitment and

innovative approaches that have significantly shaped our community, making

her this beacon of change. She serves on the mayor’s task force for crime

reduction and the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce board, all the while being the

executive director for the Kelowna Gospel Mission.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Carmen this

morning.

Hon. P. Alexis: Today is indeed a beautiful day. It’s also B.C. Dairy Day, a day to

celebrate the contributions of dairy farmers, producers and processors in

British Columbia.

These farmers have brought high-quality dairy products to B.C.’s

kitchens for generations. Today they’ve brought delicious Rocky Point Ice

Cream to the Legislature to share. So join me at noon.

There are approximately 424 family-run dairy farms in British

Columbia. They produce 840 million litres of milk annually, supporting

12,500 jobs and contributing $1.225 billion to the provincial

economy.

We’re honoured to have some of the people responsible for bringing

dairy products to all of British Columbia, and delicious ice cream to

Victoria, here with us today. It’s a pleasure to see the processors and the

dairy farmers together.

From B.C. Dairy, please welcome Sarah Sache, John de Dood, June de

Dood, Mark Van Klei, Dave Taylor, Brian Janzen, Henry Bremer and, of course,

Jeremy Dunn.

From the Western Dairy Council, Dan Wong, Sarah Cotton and Travis

Drew.

From Agropur, Tanveer Ahmed, Guillaume Bérubé and Natasha

Mountain.

Thank you. See you at 12 o’clock for ice cream.

The Speaker: Ice cream will only be provided to those who will be nice and

friendly.

[10:10 a.m.]

E. Ross: I have a very special constituent in the gallery today who is here to

lobby me for extra time: my wife, Tracey.

We haven’t seen each other in the last few weeks. She’s actually the

land manager for the Haisla Nation Council. She just got back from Dublin,

where she represented the Haisla Nation in explaining the Aboriginal

perspective on participating in environmental assessments, both the Canadian

environmental assessment and the provincial environmental assessment, for

the last 20 years.

Eight days in Dublin. She got back; I left. So this is the first time

we’ve seen each other in two or three weeks. We’re going to try to spend

some time together this weekend before I’ve got to come back

down.

Would the House please welcome my wife, Tracey.

S. Chant: I’ve got two introductions that I’d just like to make, about two

groups that are in Victoria today doing incredible meetings and

deliberations.

The first is the B.C. Nurses Union, which I had the joy of visiting

with this morning. As always, they’re working hard, with the government, to

provide an environment that is safe and effective for nurses to work in and

to pro­vide health care that is safe and effective for the people of

B.C. to be part of.

Secondly, I had the opportunity to go and do an introduction at the

right here in Victoria by RBC, of folks from the Ministry of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction. They are hosting people from right across

the national level and the provincial level. This is work that is

groundbreaking for both the provinces and, actually, Canada. Around the

world, we’re doing work that is unique.

I just want to say thank you to those groups for their hard

work.

I’m hoping the chamber will make them feel that their work is

appreciated.

Hon. A. Dix: Today, this week and through the weekend, we’re celebrating the 50th

anniversary of the Vancouver Whitecaps football team, soccer team —

what­ever you choose.

Today in the Legislature, we’re going to be recognizing their

extraordinary history and contribution not just to Metro Vancouver but to

the whole province of British Columbia. There’s going to be, and I invite

members…. There will be a lunch held in the Hall of Honour. I give special

dispensation, as the Minister of Health, to have ice cream first, food

second, to all members of the Legislature and everybody else.

Especially, at one o’clock, we’re going to have a short event

cele­brating the team, and then after that, we’re going to have soccer

clinics here on the front lawn of the Legislature, involving youth soccer,

involving elementary school students from George Jay Elementary and

Cloverdale elementary and my colleagues the members from Swan Lake, from

Beacon Hill.

That is going to be exciting. It’s part of a community soccer program

that has provided clinics to 15,000 young people in B.C., which the

Vancouver Whitecaps has led. There are going to be lots of people here, lots

of Whitecaps legends and Canadian soccer legends.

I want to introduce five people who will be in the Legislature today:

Axel Schuster, the chief executive officer and sporting director, who is

having a good year; Randee Hermus, the vice-president, ticketing sales and

service; Jennifer Scott, the vice-president, community and social impact;

and Whitecaps and Canadian soccer legend Carl Valentine, who is

here.

Finally is a person who I think everybody who has grown up in B.C.,

like me, considers a hero of Canadian sport, because of his achievements as

an athlete but, really, a hero because of the achievements in the whole

community. Bob Lenarduzzi will be here today.

I hope the House wishes all of these outstanding athletes and

community members welcome.

I. Paton: As a third-generation dairy farmer on our farm in Delta, I also would

like to welcome here I think 13 members of the B.C. Dairy

Association.

We had a great meeting yesterday, with our leader, with the Dairy

Association, to talk about the incredible costs of production. It’s

incredibly long, hard-working hours that dairy farmers put in, 365 days a

year. Twice a day, sometimes three times a day, cows get milked. Whether you

don’t feel well in the morning, the flu, a cold or maybe even a hangover,

you’ve got to get up and milk those cows 365 days a year.

[10:15 a.m.]

The good news: we can talk about improving our processing in British

Columbia with the announcement that Vitalus in Abbotsford is going to be

taking on more milk for production. The Punjab Milk company in Surrey is

also starting up a processing plant. So the future of dairy farming in

British Columbia is looking better.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Welcome, all my good dairy farming friends from all over

B.C.

S. Bond: Speaking of heroes, it has been said that not all superheroes wear

capes. That would certainly be the description of the B.C. Nurses Union

represen­tatives that are here in the precinct today and also the

nurses who go to work every single day. Despite challenging situations, they

are called to their profession. They provide care every single

day.

We want to thank them for the work that they do and recognize the

exceptional public servants that they are. As I said, they’re called to do

their job, even in the most difficult circumstances. Certainly, on behalf of

the official opposition, we are grateful.

We ask that they be very warmly welcomed here in the precinct

today.

M. Dykeman: We have some super-special guests joining us in the gallery today: 16

youths who are Indigenous, racialized immigrants and refugee youth

participants in a very special program that’s put on by the Vancouver

Foundation, the Vancouver LEVEL youth policy program.

These youth are from all across British Columbia, and it’s their first

in-person event, where they have come here to the Legislature to learn about

Canadian government and Indigenous governance.

Joining us today up in the gallery we have Aurora Sam-Wilk, Ché

Clearsky, Fatima Elmasry, Hope Alica, Juan Treviño, Katisha Paul, Khatira

Daryabi, Loretta Jeff-Combs, Oceania Chee, Prisca Egbebiyi, Roberta

Long­claws, Savannah Sutherland, Shelby-lynn Soney, Toluwanimi

Okunola, Wenonah North Peigan, Sayano Izu, Debra Trask and Stewart

Gonzalez.

They’re going to be joining us today to complement their learning in

question period. Then we’ll have meetings in the precinct, and we’ll also be

meeting with our Speaker.

I was wondering if everyone in the House could please make them feel

very welcome today.

M. Elmore: I’d like to complement the introduction from the Minister of Labour

for our 30 leaders here from the Service Employees International Union,

Local 2. I’ve got a couple of constituents I’d like to give a very warm

welcome to. We’ve got 30 leaders, leading in their communities, in their

workplaces.

I want to appreciate you for the work that you do right across British

Columbia, for your leadership here, delivering the message of the benefits

of successorship, the impact of single-step certification and your advocacy

around sectoral bargaining.

I want to give a special mention to my constituents. We’ve got Ariel

Dela Riarte and Elsa Paulino, leaders in our community and this province.

I’m so proud of the work that they do, really leading the country. Great to

have you here. Keep up your good work, and keep pushing us to make those

changes.

Thank you very much. Everybody, please give them a very warm

welcome.

G. Kyllo: I have two sets of introductions today.

I wanted to welcome June and John de Dood, dairy farmers from the

Shuswap region, to the House. They’re also joined by Henry Bremer. These

folks provide a huge impact on the economic prosperity of the Shuswap, as

well as feeding British Columbia. I want to make them very welcome here

today.

Also, I’m joined in the House today by some friends from Sicamous,

James and Laurie Weber. They’re joined by some friends that are visiting us

all the way from Germany, Viktoria Heck and Josefine Thier. I just want to

make them feel very welcome.

James has a couple of amazing sons, one that actually worked for me,

Brandon, years ago and another gentleman who you may be familiar with: Shea

Weber.

Anyhow, thank you very much for joining us here today.

[10:20 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M216 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2024

T. Shypitka presented a bill intituled Wildlife Amend­ment Act

(No. 2), 2024.

T. Shypitka: I move that a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024,

of which notice has been given on my name on the order paper, be

introduced and now read a first time.

Throughout British Columbia, thousands of families rely on

hunting, not only to feed themselves but to engage in social and

cultural practices that keep them connected to the land base they love

so dearly. This wide demographic of British Columbians knows firsthand

how important science-based wildlife management is to ensure healthy

wildlife populations. Proper decisions surrounding wildlife management

ensure wildlife populations are sustainable for the future. It is

critical that transparent decisions on regulations are solely based on

what is best for the wildlife populations and can be supported by

all.

This bill, if passed, would lay the groundwork for an independent

funding model for wildlife and habitat management that is partially

distanced from the government. This would ensure that decisions on

regulations are in the best interest of wildlife populations in our

province and that funding is dedicated only to wildlife and habitat

conservation.

The funding model would be eligible to receive funding and revenue

from the different levels of government, including municipal,

provincial, federal and Indigenous. Here, 100 percent of contributions

earned from the revenue of licences and fees associated from hunting and

other forms of land use such as stakeholder groups, philanthropy and

industry would be used only for wildlife and habitat

management.

Effective wildlife legislation is necessary to preserve our

wildlife populations and guarantees that regulations and restrictions

accurately reflect the science. This bill repre­sents a

foundational element that will allow for better data collection, mapping

and identifying critical wildlife areas, among others. Such

improvements, in turn, will lead to science-based decision-making to

protect wildlife and habitat for generations to come.

This is the third time I’ve moved this bill, and with the growing

threats of invasive species and chronic wasting disease, I ask the House

from all sides to join me in support of this critical piece of

legislation so we can get to work and protect and encourage the growth

of the wildlife populations here in British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

T. Shypitka: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M216, Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL FIREFIGHTERS DAY

AND SUPPORT FOR

FIREFIGHTERS

S. Bond: May 4 is International Firefighters Day. It pro­vides us

with the opportunity to reflect on the dedication and service of

firefighters in our province and around the world. We also remember

those firefighters who have paid the ultimate price and express our

gratitude and support for those who continue to protect us every

day.

Firefighters dedicate their lives to protecting people and

property. Whether they are professional, volunteer, industrial or B.C.

fire service firefighters, they are the men and women who put themselves

in harm’s way so that we can be safe. They are the ones that run towards

danger when we run in the opposite direction.

We know the job of a firefighter is so much more than responding

to a fire call. WorkBC describes the duties of a firefighter this way:

“Firefighters respond to fire alarms and other calls for assistance,

such as automobile and industrial accidents, various types of medical

emergencies, bomb threats, wildfires, floods as well as other serious

situations, incidents and emergencies.” We know that firefighters must

be skilled, courageous and deeply committed to public

service.

Firefighters are there for us at some of the most difficult times

in our lives. We need to do our part to ensure that they have the

support and resources they need, especially related to their physical

and mental well-being. I am very proud that B.C. United supports

immediate action on key priorities outlined by the B.C. Professional

Fire Fighters Association.

The next time you hear a siren in your community, take the time to

remember that someone needs help and that firefighters and first

responders are on the way. Think about the risk they are taking and how

much we want them to be safe in whatever situation they face.

As the very proud mother of a professional firefighter, that is my

hope and my prayer every time I hear a siren.

[10:25 a.m.]

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH AND

HERITAGE SITES IN

RICHMOND

K. Greene: May is Asian Heritage Month in B.C. and a wonderful time to

celebrate the rich tapestry of cultures and histories that make up the

Asian-Canadian commun­ity in Richmond. Richmond is one of the most

diverse cities in the country, and Richmond’s communities are well

represented by people from many Asian ethnic backgrounds, notably from

Hong Kong, China, Philippines, India, Taiwan, Japan and

Korea.

Starting in 1788, thousands of people from as many as 50 countries

in Asia came to B.C. in search of new beginnings, safety and prosperity.

They played a pivotal role in shaping much of this province’s culture,

traditions and economy and giving B.C. world-famous landmarks like

Vancouver’s Chinatown and Punjabi Market.

I would encourage people to visit Richmond’s heritage sites, like

Britannia Heritage Shipyard, which offers an ex­cellent glimpse

into the history we have in Steveston. Murakami House is the restored

home of a Japanese-Canadian family of 12 who lived in it from 1929 to

1942, before being forcibly removed during internment. Otokichi Murakami

was a boatbuilder and fisher, and Asayo worked in the canneries and

seasonally on farms. Mura­kami House has many artifacts and

stories for a visitor to learn more about this family.

The Chinese Bunkhouse, also at Britannia Heritage Shipyard, is the

last surviving Chinese bunkhouse on the west coast. The two-storey

building was where up to 100 Chinese men lived, ate and socialized in

cramped quarters. The building hosts exhibits and stories about the

experience of Chinese labourers in Steveston from the 1880s to the

1920s. It includes exhibits about the initial draw of the gold rush and

railroad jobs, Chinese merchants, cannery jobs and

discrimination.

Learning from our past, we must remember that our diversity is our

strength, and we need to stand strong against discrimination.

Happy Asian Heritage Month.

BUDDHIST CULTURE DAY

T. Wat: This Sunday marks the second Buddhist Culture Day in our beautiful

British Columbia, an occasion to honour the profound influence of

Buddhism on both the cultural and spiritual fabric of B.C.

Buddhism’s teachings of mindfulness and compassion profoundly

impact our communities, fostering peace and enhancing mutual

understanding. Significant landmarks such as the International Buddhist

Temple, Lingyen Moun­tain Temple, Buddha’s Light International

Association and Thrangu Monastery in Richmond, alongside numerous other

Buddhist establishments throughout B.C., epitomize these values. They

serve as tranquil places for both reflection and connection.

Celebrations will take place this Sunday throughout the Lower

Mainland, including the B.C. Buddhist Festival in Vancouver and the

multicultural art and expo festival in Richmond. I will also be hosting

a B.C. Buddhist Culture Day event in my constituency of Richmond North

Centre, welcoming both Buddhist and non-Buddhist community members to

celebrate this special occasion.

This year’s proclamation of Buddhist Culture Day has been further

distinguished by the collaboration efforts in­volving our local

governments. At my request on behalf of the Buddhist community, Mayor

Ken Sim of the city of Vancouver and Mayor Malcolm Brodie of the city of

Richmond have both graciously proclaimed the first Sunday of May as B.C.

Buddhist Culture Day in their respective cities. This collective action

enables people across the province and the Lower Mainland to join hands

in a unified celebration of Buddhist teachings and their universal

values of peace and kindness.

As we commemorate this day, I would like to thank Bai Gong

International Buddhist Society for their support from day one of this

initiative.

Let us all embrace and practise the values of kindness and unity

that Buddhism promotes.

Happy and blessed B.C. Buddhist Day to all.

CLOVERDALE RODEO AND COUNTRY FAIR

M. Starchuk: The Cloverdale Rodeo and Country Fair weekend kicks off with a

luncheon at the Stetson Bowl May 16, where folks get all gussied up for

the best-dressed contest and help raise funds for the Cloverdale Rodeo

Youth Initiative Foundation.

The unofficial kickoff to the Cloverdale Rodeo is the Cloverdale

Bed Races on the evening of May 16. The bed races, sponsored by the

Cloverdale chamber of commerce and Cloverdale BIA, include the

children’s bike parade and a skateboarding demonstration.

[10:30 a.m.]

The bed races include a high school men’s and women’s team, a

mixed team and a best-dressed team. Two very auspicious trophies are

given to the top women’s and top men’s categories that are referred to

as the Chamber Pot and the Bed Pan. To quote the chamber executive

director, Scott Wheatley, he says: “I would be proud to display

them.”

The first rodeo was in 1945, and this year, like in other years,

begins with a parade on Saturday morning, full of folks participating in

the weekend of events. If you wonder what you’re going to do or see at

the Cloverdale Rodeo and Country Fair, they have five professional rodeo

performances that bring competitors from all over North America,

including the world-famous mutton-busting competition, where my

six-year-old grandson will do his best to stay upright for eight

seconds. There’s an Indigenous village, live music performances, 40-plus

food trucks, 30-plus carnival rides and many other family

events.

I am pleased to mention that the province, through its fairs,

festivals and events fund, was able to provide nearly $140,000 to assist

with this fantastic community event. I am sure the president, Kathy

Sheppard, and the treasurer, Jen Temple, were pleased when they got this

funding news.

To all that are here, come on out this May long weekend and enjoy

the sights, sounds and smells of this rodeo event.

SALISH SEA

A. Olsen: The Salish Sea and archipelago of islands sprawling across the

international boundary, the place I belong to, was once one of the most

biodiverse regions in the world. It is home to the

W̱SÁNEĆ emerging people and the

SĆÁÁNEW̱ , the

hardest-working wild Pacific salmon, whose families have been connected

from time immemorial.

ĆENŦEḴI, ĆENHENEN, ĆENŦÁWEN,

ĆENQOLEW̱ — four of our 13 moons

mark the return of our

SĆÁÁNEW̱ relatives to

their homelands.

SDȺY,ES,

W̱ENÁ NEĆ,

ṮEḴTEḴSEN,

SḴŦAḴ, SMOQEĆ, among so many

places in the Salish Sea where my ancestors practised the

SX̱OLE , the reef net

fishery. As my Elders remind me, it was our law.

KELL̵OLEMEĆEN , the

families of southern resident killer whales we fished alongside each

summer. Brave Little Hunter, the baby orca whale, orphaned and trapped

out on the west coast, reminds me of the public response to Tahlequah,

our local KELL̵OLEMEĆEN

relative that pushed her dead baby calf for 17 days, back in

The outdated murals here in the Rotunda celebrate the fishing

industry. Now fishing is barely a pastime in our waters, destroyed by us

in less than 100 years. Is it time for us to cover another mural in this

place?

The Salish Sea is noisy now for terrestrial and marine mammal

alike. Noise from air, marine, bureaucratic traffic increases. Marine

policy and enforcement drone under layers of bureaucratic sediment and

inertia. Federal, provincial, local, First Nations, international

governments share responsibility, yet no one is responsible.

Now online, the Trans Mountain Pipeline pukes diluted bitumen into

tankers transiting the Salish Sea. SMOQEĆ, Point Roberts, one of the

most productive sockeye fisheries in the world — choked out by expanding

container and coal ports.

Even though everyone has authority, nobody can do anything. But my

duty to stand up for the Salish Sea never diminishes.

MOVING FORWARD FAMILY SERVICES

AND WORK BY GARY

THANDI

J. Sims: I have known Gary Thandi for many years, and I have watched him

dedicate himself to serving our community. Gary is a widowed father of

two boys and identifies himself as a wounded healer.

He lost his spouse to frontal-temporal dementia. She was in her

early 40s. I watched his struggle, and to me, he epitomizes human

tenacity. He took the challenges that he faced, and he wanted to turn

them into serving the community.

He, thus, recognizes the importance of accessible support,

culturally sensitive and linguistically sensitive as well. His personal

journey informs his commitment to serve. Gary holds both a bachelor and

master’s of social work and has nearly 25 years of experience in the

social work sector. Most of his professional life has been spent working

within our diverse communities, helping to remove the stigmas attached

to mental health and aiming to meet the often unique needs within these

groups.

[10:35 a.m.]

In those 25 years, Gary observed that the resources in mental

health and well-being available to these communities did not meet the

demand for services. He also noted that practicum students in

counselling, psychology and social work with mentorship support could

help meet the needs of the community and bridge some of the

gaps.

From those observations, Moving Forward Family Services was born.

With a mission to empower underserved communities, Moving Forward is a

non-profit which pro­vides low-barrier counselling and support

services to residents of B.C. while mentoring and working with over 150

students on practicum.

Offering close to 3,000 hours of counselling each year, mentoring

countless students, Gary Thandi has changed the lives of so many

individuals. To me, he epitomizes the strength and the human tenacity

and how that can drive you when you want to serve the

community.

E. Sturko: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

E. Sturko: Thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to do this again, because

now I’ve heard that we have the elementary school students…. They just left.

Oh my goodness.

Interjections.

E. Sturko: They are in the precinct, yes. Again, I was going to want to make sure

that we welcomed the students from Hazelgrove Elementary. They just left.

I’m sure another group will be back. Would the House please join me in

making them feel welcome again.

T. Wat: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Wat: I see my young constituency assistant, William Tu, is up there in the

public area watching the question period that’s going to unfold.

Enjoy it.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ROLE OF LAW

ENFORCEMENT

K. Falcon: Another day of carnage in communities as a direct result of this

Premier’s legalization of the open use of crack cocaine, meth and

fentanyl in our parks, playgrounds, beaches and even hospitals. Not only

has the federal government not granted the Premier’s request for partial

decriminalization, but front-line police are now calling for this

disastrous decriminalization experiment to be completely

scrapped.

Jeff Swann from the National Police Federation warns: “Just making

a modification to this policy will not work. It needs to be collapsed to

protect the public, to protect neighbourhoods and police officers across

the province.”

Will the Premier finally listen to our front-line police and adopt

B.C. United’s bill introduced yesterday to scrap his failed

decriminalization policy entirely, and if not, why not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. To remind the member,

this is a health issue; it’s not a criminal issue.

This morning, the chief of police of the city of Victoria said

that the changes that were introduced on Friday were very important in

terms of dealing with the challenges that his officers are facing on a

day-to-day basis. The changes were made by consulting and working with

police to ensure that they have the tools that they need to deal with

open drug use.

Those are the issues that have been identified by the public, by

communities. That’s why we put in place Bill 34. That’s before the

courts. But the fact that that is taking far too long in order for us to

deal with those concerns is why those changes were made. We are giving

the police the tools that they have asked for to keep communities and

the public safe.

K. Falcon: I have news for the Solicitor General: no changes have been made.

There has not been any change made whatsoever, except for this Premier

and this floun­dering government sending a letter to the federal

government saying: “Please bail us out of our own stupid

de­criminalization experiment.” That’s the only thing that’s

happened. This Premier’s decrim deception has not ended the crime, the

chaos and the social disorder that his radical policies have

caused.

[10:40 a.m.]

Front-line officers and the police union say only a total repeal

of this disastrous policy will stop the ongoing daily carnage and that

the damage control from this Premier will only make things worse. The

union warns: “Police officers are going to be left facing increased

criticism, and citizens are going to become more frustrated with this

failed policy.”

Again to the Premier, when will this soft-on-crime Premier finally

listen to front-line police and adopt B.C. United’s bill, introduced

yesterday, to end this failed de­criminalization

experiment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate question from the member.

When it comes to a deception, really, the only deception that’s

been going on is the positions that have been taken by the opposition.

When you have the Leader of the Opposition standing up and saying that

some of the chiefs of police were supportive of decriminalization and

what they were supportive of is not charging people for small amounts of

drugs, I agree with that. Those are the words of the Leader of the

Opposition.

When other members of the opposition are saying: “Does it mean

that our party doesn’t support decrim or harm reduction? Absolutely not.

We do with our whole hearts. We want to save people.” That’s been their

position. It changes…. When, as I like to remind the members of the

House, the two members down there change their position, so do the

opposition.

The reality is this. We work with police on a day-to-day basis to

make sure that they’ve got the tools that they need. This is a health

issue, not a criminal issue. This is about dealing with open, public

drug use of illegal substances. Those are the changes that we have been

putting in place. Those are the changes we are working with Ottawa

on.

We know that people are concerned about public drug use and it

taking place in the open. We also know that people are concerned about

those who use in the privacy of their own home. Those members over there

know that, too often, those are people who work on our resource

projects, that work on our pipelines, that work in the forest industry….

The organizations that represent them have been concerned about getting

them the treatment that they need.

The work that we are doing ensures that that can be done, that

they do not have to worry about being arrested or

criminalized.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND IMPACT ON FIRST

NATIONS COMMUNITIES

E. Ross: The NDP Premier’s decriminalization policy has not only normalized

drug use but also introduced so-called safe supply drugs into our

communities, where they are addicting our youth.

This week a doctor reported a devastating 22 percent increase in

youth deaths involving these government-supplied drugs. Our First

Nations communities are suffering every day under this

policy.

My question is to the Premier. How much longer must First Nations

suffer under this Premier’s dangerous experiments with our kids’

lives?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for raising what I know is a very

important issue for every single member in this House and across British

Columbia, and that is the safety and the health and well-being of

children and youth in our communities.

I want communities and British Columbians to rest assured that the

primary work of our government is to make the investments and the

supports that children and youth need. We are working upstream. We’ve

increased Foundry centres. We’ve just made an announcement last week

about a significant expansion to integrated child and youth teams

working out of our schools and with our child and youth mental health

system.

We are, thankfully, not seeing, according to McCreary, a report

that came out recently, an increase in youth being attracted to opioids.

directly about the dangers of the illicit drug supply. We really, really

want youth and their families to know how dangerous the illicit drug

supply is right now. We’re going to continue to do that work. We know

how important it is to be reaching to youth.

[10:45 a.m.]

The Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

E. Ross: Everybody in this place knows that our Indigenous communities are

disproportionately suffering in this drug crisis. It is killing

Aboriginal youth at a rate six times higher than the provincial average,

and it’s made worse by NDP government policies that create more

addiction.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member will continue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Member has the floor. Continue.

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s made worse by NDP government policies that create more

addiction.

Two months ago police seized 3,500 hydromorphone pills in a First

Nations community of only 600 people. Two years after the start of this

so-called safe supply program, youth deaths involving these government

drugs increased by 22 percent.

When will the Premier end his disastrous policies of

decriminalization and of so-called safe government-supplied

drugs?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I think it’s important to note that what is devastating

communities is an illicit drug supply that has concentrations of

fentanyl that are off the charts, that has contaminants that do terrible

things to people’s bodies.

Indeed, there is no question that vulnerable populations are

disproportionately impacted by this crisis. That’s why we’re working

directly with First Nations, directly with provincial leaders, with the

First Nations Health Authority…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …to stand up services dedicated to Indigenous youth. We just

supported the opening of Orca Lelum in Lantzville a couple of weeks ago,

which is a first-of-its-kind facility in British Columbia dedicated to

caring for Indigenous youth. We have a $171 million investment in

working with nations to stand up Indigenous-led treatment and

recovery.

That is the work that is so important for us to do in communities

on the ground and in partnership.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF NURSES

AND USE OF PRIVATE

AGENCIES

A. Olsen: Relying on private nursing agencies is costing British Columbians

and contributing to worsening health outcomes. Spending on agency

nursing has steadily in­creased — 2018, $8.7 million; 2019, $19.9

million; and in 2029, that ballooned to $64 million. Those agencies

charge a premium and pocket the profit. Meanwhile, the nurses they work

alongside are working for lower pay and increasingly unsafe working

conditions.

Why are the B.C. taxpayers paying for corporate profits and

nursing in the public health care setting? It is unnecessary and leads

to worse health outcomes. We need to break this unsustainable cycle. We

need to improve conditions for public nurses. We need public money to

support front-line health care workers instead of corporate

profits.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit to ending

reliance on agency nurses in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Dix: More than a year ago now, we froze our agency nursing contracts.

We’re currently renegotiating those contracts. We will have new

contracts in place on May 31, which will have very significant limits on

agency nurses.

That said, when we need nurses in the community, and we’ve had

this discussion the last few days, we take steps to get nurses in the

community. What have we done? We’ve brought in a world-leading nurse

ratio program with the BCNU to recruit and make this the best place in

the world to be a nurse. We’ve dramatically increased the number of

nursing spaces across British Columbia — 604 spaces. We had a record

year of new nurses in B.C. last year. We’re continuing at every level —

internationally educated nurses, a 50 percent increase in the employed

student nursing program.

In short, we are doing the work necessary to recruit, retain and

attract new nurses in B.C. That’s critical work for our health care

system. We’re continuing to do that because…. The key part of our work

with the BCNU was to address this very issue of agency nursing, to do it

together by making this a better place to be a nurse and making it a

better deal to be a nurse in the public health care system.

[10:50 a.m.]

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

FUNDING FOR STUDENT NURSES

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for the response.

While our failing health care system is increasingly propped up by

more expensive agency nurses, and we just heard the minister is moving

away from them, student nurses are struggling. Student nurses work

hundreds of hours in unpaid practicums through the employed student

nursing program. They have to pay to work. They have to pay for parking,

if they can find it at all. They have to pay for application and

licensing fees.

Why is anybody paying for parking at hospitals?

Anyway, when those nursing students graduate, they’re often

deployed into units with the highest staffing challenges and thrown into

incredibly challenging conditions, despite instructions to health

authorities to implement greater restrictions for the new grad

program.

My question again is to the Minister of Health. Beyond student

loan forgiveness, how is the minister compensating student nurses for

the hundreds of free hours that they are serving our

communities?

Hon. A. Dix: When we had this discussion in estimates, we’d go through the very

significant supports we are putting in place for student nurses,

including new seats and other supports.

One of the main ways we are doing that, though, is dramatically

increasing the employed student nursing program, which is absolutely a

paid program — 1,300 to 2,000 spaces, and they are full. That is part of

a continuing effort to support nursing in our province, to support

nurses in our province.

When you ask what are we doing for student nurses, that’s exactly

what we should be doing, which is significantly expanding opportunities

through the employed student nursing program to do that. That was part

of work we did with the B.C. Nurses Union, with the Nurses Bargaining

Association and with the community of nurses in B.C., including the

universities.

I think it’s an important step worthy of support by everybody in

the House.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND SAFE SUPPLY

INITIATIVE

B. Banman: The B.C. coroners report reveals that since the introduction of

safe supply, 11 children — 11 — have died from overdoses in British

Columbia. That’s 11 families that have lost a daughter or a son, 11 sets

of parents, 22 sets of grandparents who are left twisting in the wind,

wondering why their government used their own tax money to subsidize

powerful recreational drugs that killed their children. The death of

each of these children has created a hole in a mother’s heart that will

never be filled.

My question to this NDP Premier: how many more children need to

die before this Premier admits that his safe supply is not safe, it’s

killing children, and it must be repealed?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for raising what is a very serious and

distressing issue, which I know all members of this House feel deeply

and strongly about as advocates for their communities. I just want to

express our collective grief and compassion to families who are dealing

with the loss of loved ones.

I talk to a lot of parents. I talk to a lot of family members who

have lost people in their families and in their circles to the toxic

drug crisis. The extreme toxicity of the illicit drug supply, the

concentrations of synthetic opioids like fentanyl that are off the

charts, the perverse contaminants that are in the illicit drug supply

are indeed very dangerous to our communities.

This is why we do the work that we do with our health system, with

all of our partners, to turn the dial on this crisis. There is nothing

more important than ensuring that our kids are safe. That’s why we are

doing the work with schools, with our health system, to make sure that

kids have access to the supports that they need.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

B. Banman: Seven people are dying in British Columbia every single day from

drug overdoses. This NDP government’s pro-drug-use policies, both safe

supply and decriminalization, have killed thousands of British

Columbians since they were introduced by this NDP Premier.

[10:55 a.m.]

Instead of trying to get people well, the NDP is opening

taxpayer-funded drug use sites in family neighbourhoods like the one

that was proposed in Richmond. These sites, where people are using drugs

like fentanyl, which causes permanent brain damage…. People who use

these drugs regularly can never truly recover.

My question to this NDP Premier: how many treatment beds could

have been paid for with taxpayer money that was used to buy safe supply

drugs that killed B.C. children? How many people could we have otherwise

saved with the money that was used to buy drugs that killed British

Columbians?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Just to be very clear about the nature of this crisis, it is the

toxic illicit drug supply that is killing British Columbians, that is

killing Canadians right across the country. We are not the only

jurisdiction. We are not the only province that is experiencing the

scourge of an illicit toxic drug crisis. They are experiencing it next

door in Alberta, where they saw a 17 percent increase in mortality last

year, over a 20 percent increase in Saskatchewan.

This is a serious public health emergency. It is a very serious

issue. We are going to continue to work across the continuum, to work to

keep people alive so that we can connect them to the care and supports

that they need.

I have to say that overdose prevention sites have saved in excess

of 8,000 lives in British Columbia. I think British Columbians and the

loved ones of those individuals think that it was very much worth saving

each and every one of those lives. Our government is committed to doing

every­thing that we can — everything that we can — to ensure that

we protect our communities, protect people, provide them access to the

care that they need…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …and that we keep them alive to connect them to care.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: That’s 8,000 lives that were worth saving.

CARDIAC CARE FOR PATIENTS AT

NANAIMO REGIONAL GENERAL

HOSPITAL

A. Walker: For British Columbia’s oldest residents, the No. 1 cause of

premature death, by far, is heart disease. Yet in our community, with

the oldest population in the country, we still have no heart

catheterization facilities at the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital.

It’s the only community of our size that doesn’t have this critical

health facility.

This is about priorities. South of the Malahat, there are 22

cardiologists, where north of the Malahat, we have two. Government is

funding two new heart cath labs in Surrey, but for our community, we

have none. This is a government that is prioritizing a $600 million

sporting event over the health and the wellness of people who live north

of the Malahat.

The Health Minister has a plan to help patients that need cancer

care in our region. He has already delivered results for patients

needing intensive care, but he has no plan for patients to deliver

better health care for heart care.

To the minister, who is avoiding the question about heart

catheterization facilities in Nanaimo, what is his plan to deliver

better heart health care for the people of my community?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the member will know that there are few communities in

Canada that are receiving and will be receiving the level of capital

investment that we’re delivering to Nanaimo for critical priorities. The

member talked about that. Cancer was a generational priority. In

Nanaimo, we’re building a new cancer centre. The ICU is really a

generational fight by the whole community, the ICU and the

HAU.

He knows, significantly with respect to long-term care, the gap

that exists and why we’re doing it. He was part of our discussions on

that very project at a previous time.

With respect to cardiac care, there is a significant provincial

recruitment program in place to support Nanaimo Regional General

Hospital to deliver the care now. Clearly, Nanaimo is going to need more

investment over time, and we absolutely intend to provide it.

When we talked about cardiac catheterization, I don’t know when he

says there’s no community his size. There are five sites in the entire

province now — five. Not 50, five. We are expanding that to Surrey, and

that’s the right decision for that community, given the growing size of

that population and the needs of that population.

We are going to continue to work to improve cardiac care in

Nanaimo. It is a critical priority for Island Health, a critical

priority for the Provincial Health Services Authority, and that is to

ensure that there are adequate staff to support patients that need care

at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital.

[11:00 a.m.]

The Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum, supplemental.

A. Walker: The challenge in staffing a cardiology de­partment at NRGH

is that without the facilities, it’s very difficult to keep the staff.

That’s why we’ve seen the constant churn of staff there. North of the

Malahat we have 450,000 residents that don’t have direct access to heart

catheterization facilities. In 2006, a review by the Ottawa Health

Institute found that one out of every 30 patients at that hospital died

unnecessarily, requiring heart care.

In 2010, an Island Health report identified the need for a

dedicated cardiac unit, and the local government has committed hundreds

of millions of dollars to make this happen. The clinical benchmark for

care is 90 minutes, yet I’m repeatedly hearing from patients that are

getting six, seven, eight hours before receiving care. Some of them are

even being turned away from the hospital.

The question again is: what is the plan for NRGH heart

facilities?

Hon. A. Dix: The plan is to significantly improve care and services in Nanaimo.

The plan, as part of our provincial health human resources plan, is to

have more doctors. We are doing that in the community. More nurses — we

are doing that in the community. More health sciences

professionals.

Critically important to that is the work of perfusionists. We

addressed that issue with specific action yesterday. All of those

actions are part of the effort to ensure that people in Nanaimo get the

cardiac care they need and deserve. We are investing in Nanaimo, and we

will be investing more.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE

SYSTEM

T. Stone: Under this NDP Premier, health care in British Columbia has hit

rock bottom. Illicit drug use, drug trafficking and violence are rampant

within our hospitals across this province. Emergency rooms, when they’re

not closed, are overcrowded. We have cancer patients being shipped to

private hospitals in the United States because they can’t get the cancer

care that they need right here in British Columbia.

Now, the official NDP response to rampant meth smok­ing in

hospitals was: “It’s no big deal. Just a poorly worded memo.” Of course,

the official NDP response, just days ago, to cockroaches crawling on

walls and on linens and, yes, on patients in the Saanich Hospital:

“Don’t worry. They’re German cockroaches, and they don’t bite” — as if

the breed of cockroach makes infestations in British Columbia’s

hospitals any less disturbing.

This is the result of seven years of disastrous NDP health care

mismanagement.

When is this Premier going to do the right thing and fire this

incompetent Health Minister?

Hon. A. Dix: I just want to say I know that when members of the opposition put

forward inaccurate information, sometimes your advisers move on and

focus on other things. What happened in Saanich Hospital… The Leader of

the Opposition was Minister of Health, he knows that from time to time

there were infestations in his time. I could review all of those. I

don’t think I will.

I’ll say that what happened at Saanich Hospital, on April 17, was

that an infestation was discovered, and it was immediately responded to

by pest control. That’s what you would do in any circumstances. That’s

the protocol, and that’s what you do.

With respect, to nursing, for example, what we’ve done in British

Columbia is put…. I think you saw, if you were being briefed by the BCNU

this week, that ratios save lives.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Surrey South.

Hon. A. Dix: We are leading the world in the development of nurse ratios in

B.C. That contrasts, because our record is leading Canada in recruiting

new nurses. That’s our record.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, the Minister of Health has the floor,

please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Member.

Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

With respect to nursing, we have led Canada in the recruitment of

new registered nurses since I’ve been Minister of Health. We are

continuing to engage in that work, with a record year last

year.

This contrasts…. The Opposition House Leader may not have been

there; I don’t know. In 2009, the Minister of Health was the Leader of

the Opposition, 42,122 registered nurses. By 2011, when he left, it was

40,149, the only time in B.C. history where we lost nurses, and it was

the same for registered psychiatric nurses.

The Speaker: Thank you.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: There’s a net loss in nurses. There’s an actual numerical loss in

licensed practical nurses.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: A generation, frankly, lost.

We are going to continue our efforts to recruit doctors, to add

doctors, add nurses…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …and add health care workers across British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara has the floor.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM

AND RESPONSE TO

ISSUES

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a very disturbing pattern of hate

against Jewish students in our universities, as antisemitic encampments

have spread from UBC to the University of Victoria to Vancouver Island

University in Nanaimo.

Charlotte Kates, arrested for hate speech that praised the October

7 massacre of Jews by Hamas, is supporting these encampments on behalf

of Samidoun. Samidoun has received government funding but has strong

connections to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the

PFLP, a listed terrorist entity in Canada.

While McGill University has requested police assistance to protect

student safety, this Premier has done nothing to keep students

safe.

Given the spread of antisemitic encampments across British

Columbia, why has there been no action similar to that taken in other

provinces to protect students from radical activists who openly praise

Hamas?

Hon. L. Beare: I want to be very clear for the member and everyone listening that

celebrating murder and sexual violence is completely unacceptable, and

it’s extremely disappointing to see individuals use such tragedies as

this to promote hate. University campuses have historically been places

of free speech, and they continue to be so — places where people can

freely debate ideas.

Now, that being said, campuses also have to be places of safety

for all students, faculty and staff, including Jewish faculty, students

and staff.

Our government and all the post-secondary universities and

colleges across the province….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, please let her answer the question.

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you, Speaker.

This is a very important question. I want to give a very important

message to the opposition who asked the question, because hate of any

kind is not tolerated on campuses. Hate of any kind is not tolerated by

our government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. It’s not necessary to comment on every step of the way.

It’s okay. We are almost done.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you, Speaker.

Universities, colleges and institutes across the province do have

the policies and tools in place to allow for a peaceful protest while

also ensuring everyone on campus is safe. I expect all the institutes to

find that balance. Thank you.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Annual Report and

Service Plan 2023-2024 for the Information and Privacy Commissioner

and the Annual Report and Service Plan 2023-2024 for the registrar

of lobbyists.

G. Kyllo: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: I’m just very happy to see a good friend of mine, Greg McCune, the

current candidate for B.C. United as the next MLA for Salmon Arm–Shuswap.

Would the House please welcome Mr. McCune.

K. Falcon: I seek leave to present a petition.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

K. Falcon: Bill 47, which the opposition supports in principle, unfortunately

allows no opportunity for local residents or their mayor to make any

reasonable changes to protect long-established neighbourhoods.

It’s in this regard, I present a petition from 356 concerned residents

in the Brentwood Park community asking for an exemption from the

indiscriminate application of Bill 47 on their unique and long-established

community — a community, by the way, it’s important to note, that has been

supportive of density in the neighbouring Brentwood area.

[11:10 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Motion 28 on the order paper.

In

Section A, I call committee on Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition

Amendment Act.

In

Section C, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 28 — TIME ALLOTMENT FOR

FAREWELL ADDRESSES BY

RETIRING MLA s

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 28 standing in my name on the order paper. It seeks

to allow for a special proceeding to enable members not seeking

re-election this fall to deliver a farewell address to the House this

afternoon.

[That, notwithstanding any provision of the Standing Orders of usual

practices of the House, the first hour of Orders of the Day at the

afternoon sitting on Thursday, May 2, 2024, be allotted for Members not

seeking re-election in the Forty-third provincial general election to

deliver a farewell address to the House, with the speaking time limited

to ten minutes per Member.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call continued second reading on Bill 21, Legal Professions Act,

in the main chamber.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — LEGAL PROFESSIONS

ACT

(continued)

M. Morris: I’ll carry on from yesterday on the Legal Professions Act and the

intrusion it has into the independence of our legal profession right

across British Columbia.

I did mention it yesterday. I do know that the government bench

has a number of MLAs who are ministers and who are members of the legal

profession in British Columbia. I think British Columbians and the legal

profession need to hear from them as to what their comments are with

respect to the provisions of this very intricate, lengthy and complex

bill that is going to affect notaries. It is going to affect all aspects

of the legal profession right across British Columbia.

One of the concerns…. This government has demonstrated right from

the time they took government in 2017, with the now Premier…. He was the

Attorney General at that particular time. The amount of what I and many

others consider to be the interference of government in the independence

of the legal profession right across the province here….

I know the Premier, when he was with B.C. Civil Liberties and

Pivot Legal Society…. Their position on ensuring that people were

released…. The administration of justice on offences was held, by these

organizations, as something that was interfering with people’s rights, I

guess. I don’t know. What has been taken away from this is bringing the

administration of justice into disrepute.

I know the courts right across Canada have looked at this.

Bringing the administration of justice into disrepute is pretty

significant. Between that and the risk to public safety, the courts take

a dim view on these kinds of things that bring the administration of

justice into disrepute.

I look at the administration of justice when it comes to somebody

being arrested by the police and released on an appearance notice to

appear in court on such a day, and they don’t appear in court. Crown

counsel doesn’t approve any charges for failing to appear in court. I

believe it was the direction of the then Attorney General that has led

to the Crown counsel charge approval policy that we see today, the

interference with that particular aspect of it. It not only leads to

failing to appear in court after being issued an appearance

notice.

[11:15 a.m.]

When a judge orders somebody to return to court for trial or for a

specific purpose and that individual doesn’t appear in court anymore or

fails to appear in court, it requires the judge to issue a warrant.

We’ve seen time and time again where individuals ignore the warrants.

The judge endorses the warrants time and time again to compel the

individual to come back, and they don’t come back.

Or individuals that are released on conditions…. “Keep the peace

and good behaviours” is the common one that everybody is supposed to

abide by, and they’re back out on the street and, within minutes

sometimes, they’re back breaching those provisions of keeping the peace

and being of good behaviour. It doesn’t work.

Or they breach their conditions where they’re not supposed to go

to a certain area. Or they breach provisions where they’re not supposed

to do certain things, and the Crown counsel policy prohibits them from

laying charges. We see the escalation of administration of justice

offences right across British Columbia that have had significant impacts

on police resources, on court resources, on probationary resources or

community corrections, as it’s referred to. That’s taxpayer money that’s

being involved in these.

I think the Attorney General should have been stepping into this a

long time ago to ensure that administration of justice offences are

properly prosecuted before the courts. I know that’s a step we’re going

to be looking at when the B.C. United take over government later this

fall. It’s something that needs to provide the confidence to the public

that we have confidence in justice system in British Columbia. It’s not

being undermined. It’s not being influenced by government through

policies and through a lot of the things that we see in this particular

act, in this particular bill that’s being proposed before the House now,

put before the House.

The other thing I see taking place is when government starts

thinking they know better than the experts. We’ve seen a lot of that in

this particular bill before the House, and we’ve seen it in other bills

that have come before the House. That signifies it’s time for a change.

It’s time for a change in government when government starts bringing

bills like this forward to take control of things that they feel that

they know better than the experts that we have in the legal field or in

any other profession that we see where government has been interfering

through legislation. That’s an infringement on the public’s confidence

in the justice system that we have in British Columbia.

When we look at another example of interference by government in

the legal profession, in justice, we don’t have to look much further

than the decrim policy that government has brought into play over the

last year or so, where they have imposed a policy on the public for the

police not to seize 2.5 grams or less of deadly fentanyl, cocaine,

heroin, a number of the other drugs that we have out there. That’s had a

significant impact, when we see over 2,500 people a year dying in

British Columbia as a result of drug overdoses and fentanyl overdoses

because the government has overridden a federal law in their attempt to

decriminalize these small but deadly amounts of drugs, when we look at

the amount of fentanyl that it takes to cause a particular

overdose.

When Bill 21 talks about the Legal Professions Act, this is the

entire Legal Professions Act as it applies to all aspects of tribunals

and law in British Columbia. It interferes with the independence of how

we choose our judges in British Columbia.

[11:20 a.m.]

It interferes with the independence at every level that we see

where the officers of the court are involved, where the barristers, the

lawyers and the solicitors are involved in trying to navigate their way

through a lot of the complex problems that are created within our

society because of the different situations that arise. But those

lawyers and the people they are acting for need that confidence, need

that independence so that they can go forward and do whatever they need

to do under the rigorous oversight of jurisprudence that we have

established in this province ever since Confederation and beyond. We

rely a lot on a lot of the case law that’s been developed in England and

other jurisdictions around the world. So it’s not like….

I fail to understand why government wants to do this, other than

to impose their will on this independent arm of the courts. There is a

lot of jurisprudence, a lot of policies, a lot of things that have

developed over the years based on tried-and-true legal manoeuvring

through the courts and through the processes that are taught in our law

schools, that are taught to the various tribunal heads we appoint right

across British Columbia, through the Law Society of British

Columbia.

To me, this overreach that we see in the 300 provisions of Bill 21

needs to be exposed to the public so that they can see exactly what

government is planning on doing by imposing Bill 21 on the people of

British Columbia and on the legal profession of British Columbia. We

need the time to do that. We will be….

I’m sure other colleagues…. I’m waiting to hear from the members

of the legal profession on the government side, explaining their

position and why they support this particular bill, because the public

needs to hear that too. The legal profession needs to hear that as well.

So we’ll get this out in the second reading of this particular

bill.

I know for a fact that our critic for this particular area will be

popping the hood open on this during the committee stage to examine

every clause under Bill 21, giving the public an opportunity to view

that and to give the Law Society and the legal profession and the

notaries out there, who will be significantly impacted by this bill, an

opportunity to watch and perhaps even offer questions to us or to

anybody else involved in the process here so they can clarify a lot of

the different issues and things that we have involved there.

This is something that…. I’ve received calls from a number of my

friends that I’ve noted over the years, as I said yesterday, after being

involved in law enforcement, trials for more than 50 years now, and

various tribunals, various court levels. People that have been involved

in the past, and individuals who have decades of experience in the legal

field, are extremely concerned over the direction that this bill is

taking British Columbia, extremely concerned.

As I said, I’ve received very many calls from retired folks that

have been involved in the legal profession, as well as currently serving

trial lawyers and others. In fact, some of them are saying: “If this

actually goes through, I’m going to pack my bags. I’m going to move my

office out of British Columbia because it’s taking that independence

away. I won’t be able to adequately represent my clients when they come

walking in the door because of the threat of the overreach of government

in how we do things.”

It’s going to eliminate that independence that we have the

confidence in, in moving forward. It’s going to eliminate that

independence that the public relies on in British Columbia when they

have the folks from the legal community representing them. It doesn’t

matter whether it’s in buying a new home, whether it’s buying a company

and going through the rigorous process that they need to, to ensure that

they’re covered from all the little legal things that could take place

with respect to property and business rights.

It’s the type of independence that we need when we have a lawyer

representing a family, perhaps at a coroner’s inquest, to make sure the

family’s concerns are represented without an overreach from government,

and that the person that’s sitting, hearing that coroner’s inquest, has

the independence to hear that without overreach from

government.

[11:25 a.m.]

There are a number of these administrative tribunals throughout

the province here that hear matters dealing with the environment, that

hear matters dealing with health, that hear matters dealing with a

myriad of other things there’s legislation for in British Columbia.

There are also opportunities for individuals to exercise the laws of

natural justice to be heard — and to be heard before an independent

member of the legal community in British Columbia or to be assisted by

an independent member of the legal community in British Columbia as

well.

This bill goes into a lot of detail on this. It causes a cloud to

develop over the independence of the legal community in British

Columbia, a cloud that is not necessary. The only thing that I can think

of that has brought this kind of a bill and these kinds of drastic

changes to the forefront, probably, is the fact that the previous

Attorney and the now Premier wanted it this way, because he disagreed

with the way the system worked with respect to Pivot Legal Society and

some of the other…. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association. They wanted to

have these changes implemented to protect their own mantra or their own

thoughts on the way British Columbia should operate.

The independence of the legal community in British Columbia is

paramount. It cannot be interfered with. The independence of the

judiciary is paramount in British Columbia. The rule of law is paramount

in British Columbia. For government to try and manipulate the rule of

law by implementing regulations or legislation that will change that, I

think, is going to lead to, perhaps, a constitutional challenge that

will cost more taxpayers’ money and will cause more of a haze around

exactly what the rule of law means with respect to a lot of these

different tribunals that we have.

I think that we need to concentrate on this bill. We need to

unveil all of the aspects of this particular bill, publicly, through the

committee stage so that everybody gets a chance to see that. And then

we’ll see what the outcome is at the end of that. But there’s a lot of

concern over this from the profession. There should be a lot of concern

from people in British Columbia as well.

E. Sturko: Of course I’m rising today, like my colleague, to speak to Bill

21, the Legal Professions Act, which proposes significant changes to the

regulation of legal professions in British Columbia.

I just want to start by reading something from 1982, the year that

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. It was Justice Estey

of the Supreme Court of Canada that articulated the essential importance

of an independent bar. Justice Estey said:

“The independence of the bar from the state in all its pervasive

manifestations is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Consequently,

regulation of these members of the law profession by the state must, so

far as by human ingenuity it can be so designed, be free from the state

interference, in the political sense, with the delivery of services to

individual citizens in the state, particularly in the fields of public

and criminal law.

“The public interest in a free society knows no area more sensitive

than the independence, impartiality and the availability to the general

public of the members of the bar and through those members, legal advice

and services generally.”

The reason I wanted to bring that forward is because this is the

fundamental concern with this legislation. It’s about upholding the

independence of the bar from the state.

[11:30 a.m.]

As a former police officer, many times I attended court as a

witness in investigations. Through the years of policing, I supported

many victims of crime — many times very, very vulnerable people,

domestic violence victims, sometimes children. Having that underpinning

of understanding that your voice is being heard, that those that

represent you are truly independent from government, from the state, I

think is a bedrock for ensuring that people can have confidence in our

justice system. If there isn’t any confidence in our justice system,

then our democracy fails.

This bill seeks to end the self-regulation of lawyers. As I said,

it’s a cornerstone of legal independence. They want to introduce new

governance structures that dilute the voice of legal professionals

because it has increased government involvement. B.C. United, of course,

acknowledges the need for modernizing legal services and improving

access to justice, but we’re deeply concerned that Bill 21 compromises

the independence of our legal system, a fundamental principle that has

to be preserved to maintain public trust in the rule of law.

We know that as we stand here on Bill 21, the government has

actually been put on notice by the Law Society, the Canadian Bar

Association, the trial lawyers and even the B.C. Civil Liberties

Association, the organization that the Premier was formally involved

with. They’re concerned about the challenges to this bill in terms of

undermining the independence of the legal profession and concerns that

when we’re talking about it’s actually the lawyers…. They have selected

to serve on the bench, to serve in our courts, and they are doing this

to protect the rule of law.

With these types of changes, it is their concern, which they’ve

been bringing forward, that it is in fact bills like this that do

undermine their ability to remain independent.

Firstly, the proposal to end the self-regulation of lawyers is a

significant departure from the long-standing tradition of legal

independence. Tradition isn’t merely a relic of the past, but as I said,

it is a cornerstone of fair justice and the legal system. It ensures

that legal professionals can operate, of course, without undue

government influence.

The introduction of a governance structure that is predominantly

appointed by the government risks the potential for interference that

could actually sway legal regulation and oversight. Furthermore, the

proposed board composition under Bill 21 includes a significant number

of government-appointed members. The involvement of government-appointed

members in significant numbers could lead to decisions that favour

political convenience over professional standards and

justice.

The bill continues a disturbing trend of government overreach into

professional fields, paralleling the action seen in recent

restructurings within health care and engineering through Bills 36 and

49. Such precedents serve as a stark reminder of the erosion of checks

and balances when a professional field comes under the heavy hand of

government control.

As I mentioned earlier, our consultation with legal advocacy

groups and stakeholders paints a concerning picture. The Canadian Bar

Association’s B.C. branch, the Law Society and the Lawyers Rights Watch

Canada have all echoed these apprehensions regarding the dilution of

lawyer independence under the new regulatory regime proposed by Bill 21.

And they’re not unfounded fears but based on thoughtful analysis and

understanding of a legal framework that, to this point, has served our

province well.

by introducing regulated paralegals and, potentially, other new legal

professions, it’s crucial for us to scrutinize how these changes will

affect the quality of legal services. Expanding access should not come

at the expense of professional standards. Each modification to the scope

of practice we should be carefully monitoring and evaluating to prevent

any compromise on the quality of legal representation that our citizens

rely on.

[11:35 a.m.]

I am particularly troubled by the lack of consultation — or the

lack thereof, I should say, really — that preceded Bill 21’s

introduction, because only a mere 776 responses were garnered from the

engagement efforts by this government. You have to question, then, the

breadth and the depth of the input that was sought by the

government.

Just for context, we’re talking about 776 lawyers out of 14,000

lawyers in British Columbia. That’s not very reassuring participation.

When we’re looking at such a transformative piece of legislation

impacting such a cornerstone of democracy in our province, it demands a

much more rigorous and inclusive approach.

We’ve seen this before from this government. The Land Act, making

sure that they were doing consultation but not widely advertising it,

mind you, just in case people who it might concern might find out…. It

feels the same way with Bill 21: 776 respondents only out of 14,000

lawyers. Pretty sparse.

The government has promoted this bill as a means to reduce legal

fees and enhance services and affordability, but a close examination

reveals a lack of mechanisms within this bill to guarantee these

outcomes. This sounds, actually, pretty typical of this government too:

announcements but not results, potentially, no mechanism to guarantee

any outcomes. This discrepancy between the government’s promise and the

bill’s actual provisions is troubling, and it’s why it highlights a need

for greater transparency and accountability in the legislative

process.

It’s important to recognize the proactive steps taken by notaries

in British Columbia to elevate their professional standards. Notaries

have made significant strides to ensure that those practising in the

expanded scope have the necessary knowledge and expertise. This

commitment to maintaining high standards actually deserves commendation.

While B.C. United, of course, appreciates the government’s intention to

integrate such standards into Bill 21, it’s imperative to note that

notaries themselves actually proposed an alternative path.

They suggested amendments to the Notaries Act that would have

allowed them to voluntarily adopt these higher standards without the

need for a broad legislative overhaul. This approach would have

preserved the notary profession’s autonomy, while still achieving the

government’s goal of professional standards across the legal service. As

we know, the government, of course, chose not to take this

path.

As the bill moves to the committee stage, our caucus will

rigorously examine every clause to make sure that the legislation, of

course, aligns with the best interests of British Columbians and that it

maintains independence and the high standards of our legal

profession.

Our caucus would implement a regulatory framework that protects

the autonomy of legal professionals from undue government influence.

This should be done while ensuring that expanding roles within the legal

profession don’t dilute professional standards. Unlike this government’s

repeated refusal to do so, we’re going to continue to push for a

comprehensive and genuinely inclusive consultation process that involves

all stakeholders, not only 742 out of 14,000.

While modernizing the legal profession is a worthy goal, it has to

make sure that it doesn’t come at the ex­pense of the foundational

principles that govern our legal system, which is why at the beginning

of my speaking points I wanted to bring up what was said by the justice

the same year that our Charter of Rights came into effect about the

importance of the separation of the state from our judiciary.

[11:40 a.m.]

We have to make sure that no matter who you are in British

Columbia, you can feel confident you’re receiving independent counsel.

This is a right. This is what ensures that every British Columbian can

stand on an even playing field, regardless of who it is they’re facing

off with in court.

As my fellow MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie brought up earlier

about, for example, representation when you are in a situation where you

are dealing with a government organization…. He brought up the example

of the coroner, if there’s a coroner’s inquest, and you want to make

sure that the representation that you’re getting is independent in every

way and not simply going to toe the government line.

One of the things that makes this really important…. This has come

up a lot, actually, for me, so when the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie brought it up about the coroner…. I have so many

families that come to me after the death of a loved one. This year, far

too many families have contacted me because their loved one died as a

result of suicide, where they were discharged from the

hospital.

When the family tries to seek answers, for example, from the

health authorities, they feel like, whether real or perceived, the

health authority is defending the actions that were taken. It may not be

the case, but it’s certainly what people feel. They feel that they are

being stonewalled, that they can’t get access to information. That’s

because the individuals who are conducting the investigations at the

health authorities are the people who work for the health authority

itself, so there’s a perceived conflict there.

That’s the kind of thing we need to avoid in our justice system.

If, for example, you’re involved in a lawsuit that would involve a

branch of the government or employees thereof…. That perceived conflict,

whether it’s carried out or not, the perception of conflict between the

independence of the state and the judiciary, that is what undermines our

justice system.

I think, given that we’ve seen so much crime in British Columbia

that’s pretty traumatic…. It’s one of the things that I experienced when

I was a police officer. We would have very low crime in Surrey. They

still actually have a relatively low crime rate there. But people would

often have this perception that our city is a violent city.

I think back on that, and it’s like, a lot of the…. We’d have a

few things happen that were just so traumatic for the public that it

really leaves an imprint on your mind. That’s why it’s important for

people’s confidence in the jus­tice system to remain high. We’ve

heard it, and we’ve actually seen already….

If you’ve ever gone on Facebook and you see these kind of

citizens’ action groups, and people trying to form neighbourhood groups

to take justice into their own hands, it’s actually a sign that people

have lost their confidence in the justice system, because they do not

feel that they will receive justice in any other way. When we already

see this kind of fear in the public that perhaps justice will not be

done in their interest, it just really highlights why the concerns of

the legal professions about the independence of the judiciary need to be

taken so seriously.

I don’t want to drone on about that, but truly, at a time when

British Columbians are feeling unsafe, whether they face a threat of

crime, real or perceived, we need to make sure that people don’t feel

like they have to resort to vigilantism in order to accomplish justice

in British Columbia. If people don’t feel like they can trust

prosecutors or any lawyer, for that matter, that they may be going to

trial with, well, then, what else do we have?

The world has gotten more complicated since COVID. We’ve seen a

lot of conspiracies emerge. We want to make sure that we do everything

that we can to make sure that people have confidence in our

institutions.

[11:45 a.m.]

It’s fundamental to turning the corner on some of the

particular, and making sure that people absolutely feel that they are on

stable, stable, solid ground with things like the independence of the

legal system is going to be key.

Can you imagine, people who already may feel that, whether real or

perceived, the government is controlling everything, that they can’t get

a fair shake, that their voice isn’t going to be independently heard,

when they get a load of what’s happening with this bill…. You know, I

can’t speak for every single person out there, but I think, just given

the fact that the voices of lawyers from the bar associations and even

with the Premier’s former association…. I mean, lawyers themselves have

concerns, and it is fundamental that we make sure that at every

opportunity we do everything that we can to make sure that that

confidence, of course, is maintained.

B.C. United stands ready to work, of course, towards amendments,

because we do want to modernize the legal system. But of course, as I’ve

been saying, I think we need to make sure that we’re doing absolutely

everything we can to maintain people’s confidence in the independence of

the judiciary. We want to ensure that these reforms, of course,

genuinely enhance access to justice for all citizens.

Hon. Chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to

this critical issue. And I want to thank the many lawyers and the many

legal associations and representative bodies that came forward to us to

raise concerns, to talk, to actually take the time to review what is in

this bill, to help guide us, to help us understand what their concerns

are so that as we do work through every clause of this bill, we can be

assured that we’re doing our utmost to ensure confidence in the justice

system and all forms of the judiciary here in British

Columbia.

Let’s proceed with caution and diligence and make sure that we are

truly safeguarding the pillars of justice in B.C.

N. Letnick: I would like to take my place to address Bill 21.

Actually, I would prefer if someone on the government side would

stand up in between, defending the bill. The Minister of Health looks

like he’s ready to pounce, but he’s not pouncing very quickly, so I’ll

just continue. I will speak to the bill and take us to lunch and then

continue after lunch with your permission, hon. Chair.

Today I rise to address Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, 2024,

which proposes significant changes to the regulation of legal

professionals in British Columbia. I’m going to touch a little bit about

what the bill does, what it doesn’t do, some feedback from different

groups on the bill. I’ll talk a little bit about the public consultation

process as well, compare it to the public consultation the Minister of

Health and I and the Leader of the Third Party conducted during the

review of the Health Professions Act. Juxtaposed to that consultation,

I’m afraid it’s a little weak, and I will identify those areas of

weakness, if I may, at that time.

I’d just like to do a

preamble and talk about what this bill

actually seeks to do. It seeks to end the self-regulation of lawyers,

which is, of course, a cornerstone of legal independence, by introducing

a new governance structure that dilutes the voice of legal professionals

through increased government involvement.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The opposition acknowledges the need for modernizing legal

services and improving access to justice. However, we are deeply

concerned that this bill, Bill 21, compromises the independence of our

legal system, a fundamental principle that must be preserved to maintain

public trust and the rule of law.

Would you like me to reserve my place and note the

hour?

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

N. Letnick: Okay. I will reserve my place, hon. Speaker, and noting the hour,

I call for adjournment of the debate.

N. Letnick moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 25;

S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on

Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024, to

order.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. Lee: The minister is wondering, I think, whether the House Leader for

the Third Party had any additional questions at this time.

Obviously, if you do, I’m happy for you to continue your line of

inquiry.

Just let me say this to the minister and to the committee. I’ve

had the opportunity, of course, to review the Hansard

transcript, when I was out of committee for two hours yesterday on the

Bill 21, speaking to that bill. I had a look at what both my

colleagues…. The member for Skeena and the member for Abbotsford West

had a very good dialogue about some of the underpinnings of the

agreement.

There is a point, to the minister, that I will take the

opportunity…. As they were switching from the member for Skeena to the

member for Abbotsford West, the member for Abbotsford West noted

appropriately that there were a number of lines of inquiry and

discussion that could be further pursued. No doubt, I would like to

further pursue them. The member for Abbotsford West then talked more

broadly about consultation and process, which is another area that I’d

obviously like to discuss further with the minister.

I do appreciate the House Leader for the Third Party, near the end

of committee session yesterday, did start through a series of

questions.

We didn’t get the opportunity to talk during the break, but if you

have further questions you’d like to continue with, given the line of

flow that you had, I certainly would welcome you to do so. Then I will

join back into debate at committee.

[11:20 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I think we’re moving from…. Yesterday left off when we were

talking about self-determination and the Declaration Act and this

framework and moving into a series of questions, or maybe a few

questions anyways, around private property rights. We’ve not yet heard

questions on this.

I think it is important for us to have a conversation

be­cause it is one that often comes up. The minister has stated

quite clearly so far in this debate, in the responses, the potential

impact. There’s a lot of fearmongering around the potential impacts on

private property rights.

I want to give the minister an opportunity to address directly how

this bill may impact or may not impact private property rights or what

the relationship is.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the opportunity to continue. I appreciate the member

for Vancouver-Langara giving us the opportunity to complete the answer

to the question that was posed just toward the end of yesterday’s

proceedings. It was, essentially, about the issue of private property on

Haida Gwaii.

Something like 2.2 percent of Haida Gwaii is held in fee simple.

Half of that is held, as I understand it, by one company, Mosaic, a

forest products company. So it’s a very small amount of land at issue.

Nevertheless, it’s critically important that we address this issue

head-on because of some of the misinformation that, sadly, has been out

Before I be specific in answering it, I would like to once again

acknowledge, in the gallery, the presence of Laanas Tamara Davidson, who

is the Council of the Haida Nation T’agwan regional

representative. I very much appreciate her bearing witness to this

historic debate.

I can’t do much better than read the agreement in answering the

question about fee simple. I can’t do much better than read the act or

the bill that is before the House.

It says, in the agreement, in 4.4: “The Haida Nation consents to

and will honour fee simple interests, including those held by Haida

citizens.”

In 4.5: “The Haida Nation consents to fee simple inter­ests

on Haida Gwaii continuing under British Columbia

jurisdiction.”

In 4.6: “For greater certainty, this agreement and the recognition

of Haida Aboriginal title do not alter or derogate from those fee simple

interests or any rights or interests associated with them.”

For good measure, Bill 25 expressly provides that fee simple

rights to land in Haida Gwaii are “confirmed and continued.”

I would like to read from a blog post by a former Attorney General

of British Columbia, a former Minister of Aboriginal Relations and

Reconciliation, as it was then, the hon. Geoff Plant, a prominent

Vancouver lawyer now and, interestingly, a former Attorney General under

the B.C. Liberal government, currently the B.C. United government. Just

today he posted a clarification on what he’d written in strong support

of the Haida title agreement.

After citing the sections of the agreement that I just read and

the

section of the act that I just read, he writes this: “It would be

difficult to be any clearer than this. You don’t need to be a lawyer to

simple property rights on Haida Gwaii is to misread the agreement. To

tell others that this agreement threatens fee simple property rights on

Haida Gwaii is to mislead them.”

It’s hard to know how much clearer we can be. We’ll continue to

try to say what the agreement says. We’ll continue to tell the public

what they can read in the bill.

That critique that the member has referred to is patently false.

It needs to be said clearly, as clearly as the former Attorney General

under the B.C. Liberal Party, Mr. Geoff Plant, has just so recently

articulated yet again.

[11:25 a.m.]

A. Olsen: When other members of the place here will extend what’s happening

here on Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Act, out across the lands

of British Columbia…. I imagine the minister’s answer would be similar

to the one…. This act is contained to Haida Gwaii.

I think we need to hear from the minister on this. There have been

some statements that have led people, at least online, some in the

public, to believe that these changes to the Haida Nation Recognition

Act threaten or impact other people’s private property rights here in

British Columbia.

Perhaps the minister might want to provide a little context to

that.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question from the hon. member in that it puts the

emphasis on the implications of this made-in-Haida Gwaii agreement for

other parts of the province.

I suppose I should start by saying that fee simple has been raised

in other Aboriginal title claims in the history of our province, and

that has created some uncertainty in other parts of the province. The

good news is that we have ensured that that uncertainty has been

dispelled.

I think the member has made this point himself in second reading

debate. What we’ve, in fact, achieved is certainty here. The kind of

uncertainty that used to exist in Haida Gwaii has been

dispelled.

[11:30 a.m.]

That uncertainty has affected other parts of British Columbia,

because people have legitimately wondered: what does that lawsuit mean

in my particular part of the province? Here there is no such ambiguity

that remains. The agreement specifically says — I won’t read it again —

that fee simple interests are protected, and that will be under

provincial jurisdiction.

The member will know that when you put something in

an act or an

agreement of this sort, it is always speaking —

Interpretation Act and

principles of statutory

interpretation. We don’t need to say

“forevermore” or “in perpetuity,” because that is implicit. That’s how

we read statutes and always have.

It should give the greatest comfort to people on Haida Gwaii that

we have addressed this problem head-on. Indeed, when I was talking to

elected officials on Haida Gwaii, they expressed gratitude that we had

taken this sword of Damocles, one of them said, “away from our

community.” We don’t have that anymore. There’s a sense of relief that

that certainty has now been provided.

To the member’s point, that uncertainty can continue until we

resolve, through, we hope, negotiation rather than litigation, the issue

of Aboriginal title across British Columbia. It was the courts who have

confirmed the existence of Aboriginal title. It is our role as a

province to try to ensure that we provide that kind of clarity and

certainty, which we’ve managed to do on Haida Gwaii and would like to do

elsewhere in British Columbia through negotiations rather than

litigation.

A. Olsen: The Crown grants private property rights to people, and the courts

have determined Aboriginal title exists. So there is now a relationship

where the Crown’s granting of private property rights to people shares

or carries the burden the provincial government has, in order to deal

with it. That’s, in effect, what’s happening here.

As we’ve heard repeated several times, as is a template, this

provides another way in which the provincial Crown can gain certainty

for private property owners across the province by having the Aboriginal

title holders confirming that they recognize those titles and that that

can be part of a process going forward, not just on Haida Gwaii but

elsewhere.

What’s happening here, in this agreement, is it’s essentially

saying, as has been pointed out, that the Haida agree that that burden

be lifted on the private property owners, creating greater certainty. Is

that what I’m hearing from the minister?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Saanich North and the Islands for the

question about the nature of Aboriginal title and the

implications.

I want to start by saying that in

section 109 of the Constitution

Act of 1867, which confers jurisdiction on the province, the federal

government didn’t have a lot to say about Aboriginal title in the day,

but they did say that the province’s Crown land, the land that the

province holds, not the federal government but the Crown in the right of

British Columbia, is subject to pre-existing interests.

It didn’t say it in those terms, but the courts have subsequently

recognized that in this Victorian England law that became our

constitution, they didn’t have the ability to deal with the pre-existing

Aboriginal interests on the land. That has, of course, been surfaced by

the courts in the last 30 or 40 years as a fact of legal life that

lawyers across the country are grappling with.

In this agreement, the Haida have explicitly said that they are

consenting to a shared existence on Haida Gwaii. They have committed and

agreed to honour the existence of fee simple property on Haida Gwaii —

there’s no ambiguity; there’s absolute certainty — and that commitment

will lead to shared prosperity.

The member has raised the issue of the template that has come up.

People have talked about that, as if this is somehow a template for

everywhere. Well, the Premier’s comments on that were as follows — I

wanted the context of what he said, which has been cited back a couple

of times by opposition members: “This is a bit of a template,” he said,

“for everybody about what the world of the possible is.” I don’t find

that terribly controversial.

In Haida Gwaii, it is possible to achieve what we did because of

the unique circumstances of Haida Gwaii. Those circumstances are almost

half the population being Haida. Those circumstances include a written

constitution, a governance system that has been in place for 50 years,

no overlap with anyone else, an extraordinary history of collaboration

and shared decision-making with the Haida and non-Haida people who live

on Haida Gwaii — ever since the work that was done by the former B.C.

Liberal government, which is the foundation for the work that we’re

doing here today.

It’s a template for what is possible, and I think what we have

achieved in this agreement is really something to celebrate in British

Columbia because of the fact that we have removed so much uncertainty,

as we’ve said before, and created a process to continue to work, on

Haida Gwaii, to achieve shared prosperity.

A. Olsen: Just to that last point, “a template for what is possible,” I

think most people, when they hear those words, are going to view that

through the lens of the Crown side of the Crown-Indigenous relations. I

want to reflect that through the Indigenous side of the Crown-Indigenous

relations, the Indigenous-Crown relations.

I think it’s important that we see this with two-eyed viewing.

What is possible, from the Crown’s perspective, is the reconciliation of

Aboriginal title on Crown-controlled land. From the Indigenous-Crown

perspective, what is possible is what our relatives from Haida Nation

have shown — First Nations across the province that have been fragmented

by federal Crown laws, the Indian Act.

[11:40 a.m.]

As Indian bands become First Nations, this evolution that has

happened — and the way that the federal government, through the Indian

Act, dealt with land — created the overlaps. The overlapping territories

— the fact that we shared and used lands with each other as Indigenous

people historically — were governed through Indigenous laws. Those were

governed and managed through Indigenous processes, in all the ways that

humans manage those conflicts: good and bad ways, positive and negative

ways.

However, the control of those relationships has been, for the last

150 years, a round number, taken away. It has been managed through an

Indian Act. It’s been managed through multiple Crowns. So what is

possible as a template, from an Indigenous governance perspective, is

the recognition that the work that has happened — through the Council of

the Haida Nation and on Haida Gwaii, for the last 50-plus years — in

creating a cohesive community voice and national government.

It has been functioning and has found a way to navigate, probably

well and probably imperfectly as well, and it has been easier some days

and more challenging other days, but it has been a potential template

for Indigenous nations that have been fractured and fragmented and,

frankly, turned against each other — our own relatives turned against

each other — through Crown governance laws like the Indian

Act.

I remember talking to George Abbott at a Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention a number of years ago when he was the Minister

of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. He expressed to me at the

time the frustration that the overlapping territories created, and I

expressed my frustration back, saying: “Well, that has been manufactured

by the Crown governments and leveraged and exploited: ‘Overlapped — we

can’t possibly do it. So much of this province is overlapped. What are

we going to do?’”

I said to the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation: “Why don’t we create a forum and a place for those

overlaps to be actually taken care of by Indigenous people? Do you know

what? If we put the right question on the table or we put the right

opportunities on the table, incentives….” I won’t say incentives. “If we

put the right tools on the table, Indigenous nations and leaders will

sort this out.”

I have raised this point, the property transfer tax. We couldn’t

possibly think about how that money would be split as a Crown

government. I think Indigenous nations, if that were an offer on the

table, would figure out a way to understand how that happens, and we

wouldn’t have to worry about it as a Crown. It wouldn’t be our business.

It would be their business to sort out.

I really want to reflect the comment about what is possible, not

just through the Crown-Indigenous lens, but from the Indigenous-Crown

lens, that what is possible is the model that our relatives on Haida

Gwaii have shown for us.

That is that ability to overcome the very manipulative and

controlling Indian Act, to create a body, over a long period of time,

that can deal with the national interests of their nation and that can

create this multi-level, multifunctional governing body that respects

and reflects the traditional and core values of the Haida people but

that also operates and functions in the world that we have today, with

all of the governance around it, as well as they possibly

can.

I really wanted to put on the record here that we have made a huge

deal about overlapping territories. There’s no doubt that there are

overlaps, but I think that what is possible is a way for us to go

through it from an Indigenous perspective as well.

The minister has a comment to that, but I appreciate the

opportunity.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to acknowledge and thank the member for putting on the

record the Indigenous perspective, a perspective I think is so often

lacking in these debates. I think it’s a very welcome addition to the

work.

It is a template, perhaps, because there’s hope we can sort these

things out elsewhere, in the way that we have done so effectively on

Haida Gwaii, yes. Overlaps are a continuing issue that is definitely

rooted in the Indian Act and the like, yes. It is often difficult for

Minister Abbott, as he then was, and for me and for other predecessors.

This issue is really problematic, because I often wish we could make

greater progress, but it is what it is.

I think the member is absolutely right in suggesting that the

place for that work to be done could be with First Nations. He will know

that item 1.1 in the UNDRIP action plan is, indeed, to create some sort

of Indigenous commission to try to sort out issues exactly like the one

he has referenced. This, I think, should be seen as a template of what

is possible in the world for other First Nations.

I also need to remind the member that the unique circumstances

which made it so possible to do this important work on Haida Gwaii

aren’t conditions that are found everywhere else. We’re coming up to 50

years with a solid governance system. We are dealing with neighbours on

Haida Gwaii where almost half the population are Haida. The

circumstances are not easily replicable across British

Columbia.

Is there a hope? Yes. Could this be a template for hope in other

communities? Absolutely. Could the overlap issue, which has been such a

bugbear, be solved through the processes that the member suggests? Yes.

I think that would lead us to better opportunities elsewhere in British

Columbia to achieve the same things.

With that, I’d like to move the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C,

to order. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of budget

estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $413,107,000

(continued) .

P. Milobar: Yesterday at the end, my last question was around the homeowner’s

grant relating to carbon tax and how it all started with rural and

northern residents. The minister answered and said: “Okay. I just wanted

to point out to the member that there’s long-standing confusion on the

homeowner grant that the member was referring to. It was actually a

revenue recycling measure. It was never intended for how the member has

presented it here.”

Can the minister please clarify what that actually

means?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The former government introduced a number of tax reductions or

targeted tax benefits using revenue from the carbon tax. We have

continued those measures and also used the money from the carbon tax for

CleanBC programs and other spending programs like CATC.

P. Milobar: I guess I wanted clarification there because the minister said

there’s been great confusion on the homeowner’s grant, and there

actually hasn’t been. I very clearly had spelled out that it was

northern and rural residents that received an extra $100 when the carbon

tax was first introduced on their homeowner’s grant. It then went up to

$200 as we got to a $30 carbon tax.

In fact, the Pembina Institute did a report on carbon tax around

2014, and it says that, over time, a number of additional tax credits

have been introduced including an annual grant for northern and rural

homeowners.

When you go to the ministry’s own website even today — I printed

this out this morning about the homeowner grant — it says the regular

grant amount is $570 for properties located in the capital regional

district, the Metro Vancouver regional district and the Fraser Valley

regional district. For all other areas of the province the grant amount

is $770, which is $200 more.

In fact, when you go to the carbon tax report and plan from the

last budget book, before the government changed, right in it, very

clearly, as part of the revenue-neutral carbon tax reporting

requirements is northern and rural homeowner’s benefit of up to $200.

It’s right there with the No. 4 next to it. Number 4 is: “Eligible

homeowners are those in areas outside the capital, greater Vancouver and

Fraser Valley regional districts.” So it’s pretty clear that this was

always set up from the implementation of carbon tax to increase the

homeowner’s grant for people.

The question I asked was on the backdrop of the federal government

changing the rules around collecting carbon tax on home heating oils and

that fuel source being exempt for three years from carbon tax and other

provinces pushing back against that and saying all heating fuel should

be. We very clearly have seen that, essentially, for every $15 in carbon

tax in B.C. until the NDP took government, homeowners in rural and

northern areas received a $100 homeowner grant as an offset directly

related to carbon tax.

Now, under this government, before the federal rules even changed

and before there was a federal rule around pricing, this government took

it from $30 to $50 with no change to the homeowner grant. It should

have, at a minimum, been a $100 change, given the $100 per $15

previously. We’re now at $80, so that should almost have been three

incremental increases. We’re going to $170, which this government has

said they’re committed to taking it to.

[11:25 a.m.]

Given that the federal government has allowed, under the new

pricing regime that they brought in, B.C. to control their own carbon

taxation, essentially as long as you meet or exceed what the federal

rules are, and the B.C. system had a rebate to homeowners in rural and

northern areas of $100 of a homeowner grant for $15 of carbon tax, it

stands to reason that we should have been allowed and enabled by the

federal government, without changing anything we’ve been currently doing

— past practice, which was signed off on by the federal government — to

increase homeowner grants, based on the premise around the cost of home

heating and farther distances to travel in those areas.

Why has the government not increased the homeowner grant to keep

pace with what it used to be to make sure homeowners paying an

ever-increasing carbon tax are still treated fairly on their home

heating, as they were under the previous government? Let alone with the

changes federally that have happened and the pushback we’ve seen from

other provinces….

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The 2010 budget that that measure was introduced in, that the

member has referred to under the previous government, has no indication.

It was never tied to home heating or the carbon tax, not in the budget

of 2010 or in press releases from the 2010 budget. We have chosen to

deliver affordability relief to people in B.C. through CATC, for

instance — significant funding back into the into people’s pockets with

CATC.

We have a range of policies and programs in place to address the

carbon tax effect on household affordability. Actually, Budget 2024

directs all incremental revenue from the carbon tax increase to

expanding relief for individuals and families through the climate action

tax credit.

Government will continue to monitor revenues from B.C.’s carbon

pricing framework. We do that on an annual basis and prioritize

directing incremental revenues to relief for people through the CATC,

with the intent of providing a full or partial credit to over 80 percent

of households in British Columbia by 2030.

Our Budget 2024 also introduced the B.C. electricity affordability

credit, which will provide an average of ap­proximately $100 in

savings on residential household electricity bills over 12 months. They

will go to the entire province.

We are also helping people and businesses make the switch to

cleaner, more efficient technologies like electric vehicles and heat

pumps with significant CleanBC rebates. We’ve adjusted these programs so

that those who need more support the most get the higher rebates. We

removed PST on things like used ZEVs to make them more affordable, all

with the intention of ensuring that we’re helping people with

affordability.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time digging into the

archives to find the quotes from government, but I very distinctly

remember and, in fact, it’s in the carbon tax report and plan. It’s very

clearly a $200 homeowner grant to help offset the costs of carbon

tax.

The differential has always been discussed around the extra

heating and the extra travel distance needed because of a lack of

transit and other provisions of things in rural and remote areas. The

minister lives in a rural, considered more rural, and remote area, just

as I do in Kamloops. Kamloops qualifies as well. So it’s pretty clear

that’s exactly what it’s for.

It’s disappointing that the government, despite not only their own

march to $50, which had nothing to do with the federal government….

We’re now at $80, and that has not changed for homeowners since it was

capped off at $30 under the previous government. That was the point I

was trying to make.

[11:35 a.m.]

It’s disappointing, again, that this government does not want to

push back for homeowners and people that need to heat their homes across

this province in the same way that other provinces, including an NDP

Premier in Manitoba, are doing on some of the federal rules.

I was simply highlighting that there actually is a way to provide

extra relief for people, based on home heating costs, with carbon

taxation, that has been accepted by the federal government to this

point. So it would not be a stretch to see that we would be able, in

B.C., to make a case that we actually could continue down that

road.

This government, and governments get to make their policy choices,

has chosen to not help people with their home heating bills in a time of

great inflation. That’s their decision to make, and people can judge for

themselves in the coming fall.

In terms of overall tax revenues and projections…. I’m just going

to shift gears a little bit in the brief time we have before we break

for lunch. The change with the short-term rental legislation that kicked

in on May 1 surely must have been looked at by this ministry in terms of

overall revenues to government on the taxation side of the equation.

I’ll explain where I’m going with this.

We have already seen…. It’s been acutely felt by sports teams, as

they are finishing up their seasons right now, needing to travel for

provincial and regional playdowns. We’re getting reports from all over

the province.

This isn’t just a Lower Mainland issue. This is across the

province. Teams that used to be able to find accommodations for their

players in the $200 or $250-a-night range for hotel rooms are now paying

$450 or $500 a night immediately, through this weekend here and moving

forward, because of the influx of hotel guests that are being created

with the changes to short-term rentals.

I’m not trying to debate the merits of the policy of short-term

rental or not with the minister. I’m simply trying to find out.

Obviously, there’s an 8 percent hotel tax that gets charged on overnight

accommodations in B.C. Unlike the 7 percent PST, it’s 8 percent for

hotels.

Has the ministry recalculated any revenue projections, when the

view of changing the short-term rentals came in, to see what exactly it

would do to increase hotel sales tax revenues for the government,

knowing that we would be seeing a massive spike in the cost of hotel

rooms for sports teams and weddings and all of that type of travel that

will be happening over the next nine months of this year?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The government doesn’t forecast hotel PST separately. It’s

actually part of the forecasting of overall goods and services

activity.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

Copyright © 2024 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.