Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 437

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Personal Statements

Service as MLA and message of appreciation

E. Ross

Introductions by Members

Statements

Marriage of MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam

B. D’Eith

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M226 — Land Title Amendment Act, 2024

K. Kirkpatrick

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Beef Day

I. Paton

Graduates of 2024 in Vernon-Monashee

H. Sandhu

Outstanding Young Farmer winners and support for farmers

J. Sturdy

Support for tourism in Okanagan and Similkameen

R. Russell

Lauren Simpson and Down syndrome community work and advocacy

T. Halford

MLA for Vancouver–West End constituency song

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Carbon tax and cost of living

K. Falcon

Hon. J. Osborne

Hon. R. Kahlon

Government policies on carbon tax and fuel tax and spending priorities

K. Falcon

Hon. R. Kahlon

P. Milobar

Hon. K. Conroy

Protection of old-growth forests and logging deferrals

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Wildfire management

J. Rustad

Hon. B. Ma

Cost of living and affordability issues and government priorities

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

R. Merrifield

Hon. K. Conroy

Petitions

Hon. M. Dean

Tabling Documents

Office of the provincial health officer, report, Clean, Safe, and Reliable Drinking Water, 2017-18–2021-22

Reports from Committees

Public Accounts Committee,

summary of activities,

2023-24

P. Milobar

J. Rice

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Name Amendment Act (No. 2), 2024

Hon. A. Dix

K. Falcon

S. Bond

M. Morris

E. Sturko

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

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

M. Lee

Hon. M. Rankin

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2024

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.

E. Ross: I seek leave to make a few brief comments.

Leave granted.

Personal Statements

SERVICE AS MLA

AND MESSAGE OF

APPRECIATION

E. Ross: I struggled as a native growing up on reserve, so 20 years ago I

decided that nobody was going to have to go through what I’d gone

through. It’s why I support forestry, mining, LNG or anything connected

to a strong economy, because a good job means a world of difference to

people and communities. I hoped to do for B.C. what we did in Kitimat. I

didn’t quite get there, but it has still been an amazing experience in

this Legislature.

[10:05 a.m.]

I want to thank the Legislature staff, the B.C. United LEC, the

comms, research interns, my CAs in Terrace and Kitimat, my leadership

race team, even the media, my riding association, the people of Skeena,

my supporters all across B.C. and especially my parents, who found it

hard to believe I ended up here.

As Haisla chief councillor, I originally started out fighting

Christy Clark’s government, but I ended up teaming up with her

government on forestry, mining and LNG. I’ll always be grateful to the

B.C. Liberals for helping uplift an entire generation of British

Columbians, who really needed it at the time. Thank you to Kevin Falcon

and the B.C. United team for keeping up the fight.

I’ll never forget this place. I’ll never forget the Legislature

and the processes. It’s what I expected an official institution to be,

and it far exceeded my expectations. I feel very honoured and grateful

to be a small part of it. I’m going to miss my colleagues as well, on

both sides of the House, believe it or not.

Thanks to my wife and family. They don’t like the time that I

spend away from home. They don’t like the criticism I get. But they

appreciate what I’ve been trying to do for the last 20 years. I couldn’t

do it without my wife. On behalf of my family, on behalf of Skeena,

thank you for being part of this incredible journey.

And happy birthday to my wife and my granddaughter

Elise.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: I would take the opportunity to thank the member for being here and

wish him well for his next journey.

I have two sets of introductions today.

A delegation of CUPE B.C. is here in the House. They met many MLAs

already, and they will continue to meet with the MLAs, talking about their

experiences at workplaces and the areas that need to be improved.

I say that we are fully committed to work with you to make sure that

all workers go to work. They deserve to have safe workplaces. Anything less

is not acceptable, I know, to you — not to us as well.

In the gallery today, led by their president, Karen Ranalletta, are

Paul Simpson, Erin Akers, Cassie Deezar, Randelle Langevin, Melanie Brown,

Nick Angrignon and David Fleming. Please help me give them a warm welcome,

and please listen to their stories. They are heart-wrenching. It just shows

how much work they pour into their heart and soul in order to serve us, our

people out there at their workplaces. Please give them a very, very warm

welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I just noticed, also up in the gallery, my dear friend

and comrade — we worked together when we were with the IWA and with the

Steelworkers — Harkewal Dhaliwal, who was a plant chair in Mainland

Sawmills. He also put everything that he had to make sure that for the

workers in that place, their health and safety is protected and that there

is fairness at the workplace. He never gave that up, even after his

retirement.

He’s here along with other co-workers who also worked at Mainland

Sawmills, Bawa Dhesi and Kewal Bahia. They are quite a team, during their

working days, and even after retirement, they continue to be activists. They

haven’t lost the energy a bit.

Please help me give them a very warm welcome as well.

L. Doerkson: I am indeed pleased to introduce Patrice Gordon from Tatla Lake. She

is an incredible nurse practitioner. She is a champion for rural health

care. She is representing, of course, our health clinic at Tatla Lake today,

along with the dream team of Dr. Rob, Nurse Ruth, and of course,

LeeAnne.

[10:10 a.m.]

They are an incredible group, very committed to our residents of the

Chilcotin area, and they do unbelievable work. They’re here to meet with the

Minister of Health later on today.

I’m grateful that she has come all this way. Would the House please

make her very welcome.

Hon. P. Alexis: Thank you, member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. You have a great hat, by the

way. Thank you for your dedication. I’m wearing my hat a little bit later. I

just didn’t want to bring it into the House.

Well, in the very near future, 2½ hours, one of the most popular

annual events of the Legislature will be in full swing on the back steps.

Thanks to numerous organizations and my hard-working staff, we are hosting a

barbecue in recognition of B.C. Beef Day.

During B.C. Beef Day, these individuals certainly rise to rock-star

levels. However, it would be unfair not to ac­knowledge that they are

also rock stars in many communities for their expertise and efforts during

some of the most challenging days in the province.

The British Columbia Cattlemen have been critical partners for

government during times of drought, fires and floods. They have provided

invaluable insights on several matters and are an essential part of our

front-line team.

I sincerely thank all of them on behalf of British Columbians for

always being there for us.

It’s my pleasure to welcome in the precinct today Brian Thomas, Werner

Stump, Julianne Paulo Brown, Connor Brown, Rylon Elliott.

And we have a family — John, Bobby, Will and Duke Parkes. Wonderful. A

family affair.

Kenneth White and Ken Ilnicki.

Welcome to the House. Have a wonderful day. We are so grateful for

everything you do.

K. Chen: Today there will be 30 grade 5 students from St. Michael’s Elementary

from Burnaby-Lougheed visiting the Legislature with their families and

teachers from the school, including Ms. Madison Wolcyzk.

As we wrap up the session this week, I just would like to give a

special thanks to the parliamentary education office for their amazing job

hosting tours and sharing the work we do in the Legislature with guests and

young learners like those from my community today.

I ask the House to please make the students and members from St.

Michael’s Elementary School very welcome.

S. Bond: On behalf of my colleagues from Cariboo North and P.G.-Mackenzie, we

are very delighted to welcome some special guests to the Legislature today.

I want to recognize Chief Dolleen Logan and Coun. Wendy Jael of the Lheidli

T’enneh First Nation.

Both of these women and particularly Chief Logan are strong,

incredible leaders in our part of the province. I am delighted to call them

friends. We’re just so thankful that they’re here today and showing the kind

of leadership that First Nations are showing across our province.

Joining the Lheidli T’enneh delegates today is someone no stranger to

this place and to many people in the chamber, Mr. Todd Corrigall, who is

supporting the Lheidli T’enneh. He was the past executive director of the

Prince George Chamber of Commerce. He did an excellent job. I should tell

you that he is here despite the fact that yesterday was his wedding

anniversary.

Happy anniversary to you and your wonderful wife. You have some work

to do when you get home.

Please join me in making these very special guests welcome to the

Legislature today.

Hon. M. Rankin: Joining us in the gallery today is Katisha Paul, also known as

TSEPYULPULWET. She is a political science student. She’s the elected Union

of B.C. Indian Chiefs youth representative. She is a board member of the

Urban Native Youth Association, a BCAFN First Nation climate leadership

steering committee mem­ber and an administrative mentee of Tsatsu

Stal­qayu, Coastal Wolf Pack.

If you have met Katisha, you might expect that she will one day be on

the floor with other members. She has a strong interest in what we do

here.

Would everyone please make her welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

B. Stewart: It is a pleasure to rise in the chamber to welcome some guests here

from West Kelowna–Peachland, Steven Johnston and his wife Leah.

Steven has worked many years in the concrete industry for Kelowna

Ready Mix but, more importantly, put himself on the map by challenging a

former mayor in West Kelowna by running and almost winning back a number of

terms. He’s been a councillor for two terms and regional district

director.

Steven, I welcome you and Leah here to the chamber for the first time

in the gallery.

I also want to welcome Pavneet Singh back. Pavneet is from

Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream. Pavneet is here again for a second time in

the chamber and yesterday was introduced with his many business

accomplishments here.

Pavneet, welcome.

Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s always such a treat to be able to welcome people from my

community into the House. We’re joined in the gallery today by Kristina

Kearley, member of my community, member of the board of Autism B.C., member

of IATSE 891.

They work as a film technician. They’re very active in their union and

in their community. During COVID, Kristina worked with others to organize

the collection and delivery of hygiene supplies to vulnerable populations.

They are standing up every day in their workplace and in our community for

vulnerable people, including supporting teachers and students through

support for SOGI.

Would the House please help me make Kristina very, very

welcome.

Statements

MARRIAGE OF MLA FOR

PORT

MOODY–COQUITLAM

B. D’Eith: I rise in the House today to just bring up a really, really

special occasion. Two years ago, there was an historic moment in this

House when the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam proposed to his

girlfriend at the time. Actually, it was historic because it had never

happened before in this House. It was really, really special.

This Saturday at Buntzen Lake, they got married. It was two years

to the day, and it was really exciting. Probably one of the funniest

moments was when they finally got…. It was a beautiful day at the lake,

and there were all the people out there. “You can kiss the bride.” They

kissed, and the whole beach erupted in applause. It was

awesome.

I apologize, Speaker, but I’d like to, please…. If we could all,

please, give a big congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Glumac.

Introductions by Members

R. Merrifield: Joining us in the gallery today is Ryan Painter, who is a consultant

for Sasquatch Resources.

He has joined with a couple of others, who are Pete Smith, director

and CEO of Sasquatch Resources; Justin Deveault, who is a resident of Duncan

and director of Sasquatch Resources, also known as the man on the ground at

Mount Sicker — he knows the mountain better than anyone and has been a

professional prospector for many years; and Dr. Kelly Hyslop, who’s a

resident of Salt Spring Island, consultant to Sasquatch Resources, a former

medical doctor, a neurologist and has been a mining investor and

entrepreneur for many years.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the House

today.

Hon. M. Dean: Well, you will have noticed a very smart, educated and well-behaved

group of students who have come into the gallery just now. They are from

View Royal Elementary. We have two groups of students from View Royal

Elementary — which is, obviously, in the Esquimalt-Metchosin constituency —

coming to visit the Legislature today. They’re grade 4 and grade

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

I also have the pleasure today of welcoming Aries to the House. Aries

is an incredible young person from Esquimalt-Metchosin. After question

period, I’m actually going to be presenting a petition that seeks to create

a mentorship program here at the Legislature that allows young people to

spend a week with an MLA to learn more about the work that we do here in

this House.

Would everybody please join me in making Aries very

welcome.

[10:20 a.m.]

J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to introduce three friends who are visiting

from the Lower Mainland, from Surrey. It was a great delight when I got a

phone call to say that they would be arriving here today because it is

always nice when our constituents actually visit us in the

Legislature.

One of them, a dear friend I have known since 2011, is a tireless

advocate for progressive issues but also a tireless worker to make sure

progressives get elected, Harkewal Singh Dhaliwal, a brother to me and one

of my biggest supporters during my highs and lows.

Along with him, we have Kewal Singh Bahia and Bawa Singh Dhesi. They

will be here for the day today. After QP, they are going to go on a

tour.

This is how far we have come along: they are actually going to be

getting a tour in Punjabi. That is wonderful because, in our diverse

province, the Legislature now has tours conducted in different

languages.

I’m really looking forward to seeing them later on, but please help me

welcome them to this beautiful chamber.

L. Doerkson: I have two more introductions.

I’m very pleased to introduce someone very well known to the members

of this Legislature. Sechelt mayor John Henderson is here. He is an

incredible advocate for his community.

Please make him feel very welcome.

We’re also joined in the gallery by Chris Morre. He is a former

councillor of the district of Sechelt. He’s a very strong community

advocate, of course. A successful entrepreneur, Chris and his family have

transformed Bricker cidery into a thriving cidery, which is now a favourite

tourist destination for the region. Chris is a B.C. United candidate for

Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and we’d love to welcome him to this

Legislature.

Welcome.

Hon. G. Lore: Today in the gallery I have Zoë Carroll joining me. Zoë is an

incredible young and engaged student. She’s at Glenlyon Norfolk secondary

school. She reached out to me to have a conversation about what it looks

like to bring more young people into politics.

Our obligation in this place is to share what we know and to increase

access and to be part of a conversation. I’ve been blown away by the

opportunity to work with her. She also attended the B.C. Youth Parliament

last December, where she represented Oak Bay–Gordon Head, but I don’t hold

it against her. She is engaged, thoughtful and so smart.

As part of her call to bring more young people into this place, she

has brought with her a number of other students — Simon Wollenweber, Sofia

Kanji, Maddy Anctil, Jacob Tam, Finn Adamson, Arwyn Morris, Areej Shariq and

Owen Johnston-Voon. They’re accompanied by their teacher Elspeth Easton.

I’ll be joining them for lunch.

I want to make them very welcome in this House for the visit today. As

young, engaged students, this is a space for them and this is work for

them.

Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Interjections.

D. Davies: I sometimes question how the Speaker picks his people. I don’t know if

it’s…. You’d think I need some exercise, get my quads worked up.

Interjection.

D. Davies: Yes. There you go.

I’ve been quite lucky this session in having a number of people down

from Fort St. John. Today I’d also like to introduce one of my guests that I

have in the chamber, Russ Travis, who’s come down from Fort St. John. He has

some grandkids here, but we’re also going to be doing some meetings here

this afternoon. We gave him a little tour. It’s his first time in the

Legislature.

We did a little tour last night. Like everybody who visits this

building, it really is an incredible place. Like the member for Skeena said,

it never upsets when you walk through these halls here.

Would the House please make Russ welcome.

[10:25 a.m.]

D. Routley: I’d like to join the member for Kelowna-Mission in welcoming Sasquatch

Resources Corp. — Dr. Kelly Hyslop, Justin Deveault and Pete

Smith.

Sasquatch Resources Corp. is focused on sustainable development and

community engagement. The sector provides the building blocks of a clean

economy and clean technologies.

They are here to meet with the Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation

Ministry about their Mount Spieker project, which is in an area we locals

call Copper Canyon, so you can imagine its history.

I’d like to welcome them. They represent the 35,000 workers in the

sector that brings $7.3 billion to our economy.

They are joined by Ryan Painter, who is the executive director of a

capital regional charitable gaming association known as Charityworks. Ryan

does a lot of free seminars for groups that are applying for grants. In our

own constituency over the last four years, we have seen a 100 percent

increase in the amount of grant funding that is coming to our constituency,

largely because of the work that he has done. I really appreciate that

work.

I would like the House to recognize them and welcome them.

S. Furstenau: It is my honour to introduce in the House Aurora Carver and Matisse

Alfaro. They are in the gallery this morning. They are both grade 9 students

at Victoria High School, and they have a particular interest in politics and

the environment.

They are excited to learn more about what we do in here, and hoping

one day that they could be the ministers of environment. I think that would

be a very good thing.

Would the House please make them both very welcome.

R. Parmar: It is a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and welcome some

guests that I think are just behind me, if I am not mistaken — members of

the Khalsa Diwan Society of Victoria, the Topaz Gurdwara, the seniors

group.

This Sunday is going to mark 112 years to the day that the building

stone was laid at the Topaz Gurdwara. It’s going to be a very important day

for the community, and it’s so special for us to be able to invite them here

in the House.

We’ve got a big group here, so apologies in advance for all these

names I’m going to read out. We’ve got the president, Paramjit Singh Bhalla;

Jaswinder Sihota; Daljit Dhanoya; Parm Sandhu; Massa Thind; Balwinder Atwal;

Nancy Peachy; Roger Peachy; Raj Pagley; Bansi Pagley; Andy Jani; Mrs. Jani;

Gurdish Atwal; B. Basi; Madanjit Bhala; Amarjit Dhillon; Jaswinder Johal;

Kamaljit Sidhu; Inderjit Sandhu; Joginder Sohi; Harshdeep Singh; Amrit Kaur;

Jasmeet Kaur; Harjit Singh; Harjinder Sidhu; Savita Tej Kaur; Gian Saroya;

and Kewal Sihota.

Will the House please join me in making them all feel very

welcome.

M. Elmore: Joining us today, we have students from John Oliver Secondary from the

music program and led by C.J. Kumar.

We’re all in for a treat after you grab your barbecue for B.C. Beef

Day. Come around to the front of the building. They’re going to be giving a

musical performance to enjoy that, so I invite everybody to enjoy that

today.

Please ask everybody to please give them a very warm

welcome.

A. Olsen: This will probably be the last one, Mr. Speaker.

I want to introduce…. I won’t be in the room later when Fulford

Elementary Allison Bain’s grade 4 through 6 will be here.

The House can make them feel welcome.

I also want to tip my hat to Dr. Kelly Hyslop. Salt Spring Island is

always very well represented in this House.

Could the members here please make them feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M226 — LAND TITLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

K. Kirkpatrick presented a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act,

K. Kirkpatrick: I move today that a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2024,

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

introduced and read for the first time now.

We confront a critical issue that tarnishes our legal system: the

enduring presence of racial covenants on property titles across British

Columbia. Despite being legally null and void, these relics of a

segregated past persist, staining our documents and diminishing our

collective integrity.

[10:30 a.m.]

The egregious nature of these covenants is exemplified by clauses

such as — and I don’t like to read these in the House, but they are in

our legal documents — “no person of the African or Asiatic race or of

African or Asiatic descent, except the servants of the occupier of the

premises and residence, shall reside or be allowed to remain on the

premises.” This language, both exclusionary and degrading, underscores

the urgency of our task.

The Land Title Amendment Act, 2024, mandates registrars to

completely remove these covenants from land titles. It’s not enough to

merely strike out and obscure them. We need to completely eradicate them

to mend the deep-seated wounds they have caused.

I have met with the land title authority, and I know that this can

be done. The act is a step forward to rectifying past injustice and

combating xenophobia. It affirms our commitment to a society that stands

firmly against hatred and ensures that no one continues to suffer from

the remnants of past wrongs. If government is committed to anti-racism,

this is an important step.

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

Motion approved.

K. Kirkpatrick: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M226, Land Title Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BEEF DAY

I. Paton: Happy B.C. Beef Day at the Legislature. Today we celebrate the

hard-working ranchers who bring us some of the finest cow-calf

operations in Canada.

From the lush, green pastures of the Fraser Valley and Vancouver

Island to the rugged hills of the Cariboo, Peace, Kootenay and Nicola

regions, B.C. beef is renowned for its exceptional quality. Our farmers

and ranchers are not only vital to our local economies, but they are

also among some of the most skilled and dedicated agricultural producers

in the province. They play a crucial role in supporting rural

communities and ensuring our food supply remains robust.

These folks have faced numerous challenges over the years, from

fires and drought to flooding, mudslides, loss of grazing tenures, water

rights, predator losses and skyrocketing feed prices. Despite these

obstacles, they continue their proud traditions, often working in slim

profit margins.

Our cattlemen and cattlewomen are also tremendous stewards of the

land, caring immensely about biodiversity, water security, water storage

and doing their part to create positive impacts on rangeland in regards

to carbon sequestration. Ranchers, as stewards of the land, also care

about the environment, care about sustainability of the industry and

also play a serious role in emergency management planning and

coordination.

Most calves are born in spring. At about 100 pounds, they head up

to summer grazing grounds with their mamas. They come back in the fall

at about 600 pounds of protein, and they didn’t even burn any diesel to

get there. And they kept the grasses down, which helps with fuel

reduction for forest fires. The steers then make their way to B.C. or

Alberta feedlots.

Supporting the folks that raise and feed cattle in this province

is so important. By choosing B.C. beef at our farmers markets or local

grocery stores, we’re not only getting a locally grown and humanely

raised product, we’re also helping to sustain these family-run

businesses.

Today we’re not just celebrating resilience; we’re also looking

forward to a fantastic barbecue. Let’s raise a glass and a fork to the

hard-working people who keep our plates full and our taste buds

happy.

Thank you to all the B.C. ranchers and farmers out there. We

appreciate everything you do.

GRADUATES OF 2024 IN VERNON-MONASHEE

H. Sandhu: Today I want to extend my best wishes and congratulations to 2024

grads from Vernon-Monashee, including their families, their amazing

teachers and my daughter, Jasreen.

Next month on June 7, the first of our grad classes from Lumby’s

Charles Bloom Secondary School celebrates this incredible

accomplishment. They will be followed by the grad classes from Kalamalka

Secondary, Clarence Fulton, W.L. Seaton, Vernon Christian School and

Vernon Secondary.

Students from Okanagan College and UBCO are also achieving their

milestones.

[10:35 a.m.]

Dear grads, as you cross the stage this year, I hope you

understand that the diploma or degree you receive represents more than

years of formal education. It represents the challenges you faced, the

relationships you built, the skills you honed and the memories you

made.

Your efforts are an investment in yourself and your future. I hope

you all remember this feeling of accomplishment in your upcoming

ceremony for the rest of your life. Let this feeling be the light to

guide you when things get difficult. You can do anything you set your

mind to.

This graduation season I hope you take a moment to reflect on

those who helped you to get to where you are: your families, friends,

guidance counsellors, coaches and, of course, your teachers. The

teachers, support staff and faculties in this province are a strong

symbol of strength. I ask you to all reflect on and show your gratitude

to their contributions in your success.

You are our future and hope. It is a big world out there. Go out

and seize it. Don’t let anything stop you from pursuing your goals. Like

every year, I look forward to seeing you all at your grad events to give

you my personal scholarships.

Please join me to wish all the best and great success to all high

school and post-secondary students from Vernon-Monashee and from across

the province.

OUTSTANDING YOUNG FARMER WINNERS

AND SUPPORT FOR

FARMERS

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to follow up on the Beef Day comments of my colleague

and highlight some exceptional farmers.

This year’s winner of the Outstanding Young Farmers of B.C. and

the Yukon are Aubyn and Tristan Banwell of Spray Creek Ranch in

Lillooet, where they operate a cow-calf operation direct to

consumer.

There must be something in the Sea to Sky pertaining to

excellence, because in Pemberton, just on the other side of the Duffey

Lake Road, is Kerry McCann of Laughing Crow Organics. They have, for the

last 11 years, done a great job growing vegetables, again direct to

consumer.

Beyond the many qualities needed to be a finalist as an

Outstanding Young Farmer, what is remarkable is that both of these

growers have seen success on leased land. Not being in control of your

land base is a real risk, especially when it comes to security for

financing and long-term investments.

Farming is a capital-intensive business, with skinny margins. If

you don’t see it first as a business, you probably won’t be farming for

very long. After all, when asked a question about how to make $1 million

farming, the cynical farmer’s response is simple: “Start with $2

million.”

And we see this — generations of family farms not seeing a

business case for buying the farm, particularly where the farmer can’t

afford to just give it to the kids because the farm is often the

farmer’s pension. You can imagine it’s even more difficult to think

multigenerational when you don’t own the land.

What can we do? Well, what we can do is significantly incentivize

non-farmer landowners to ensure that the land is available to farmers on

a long-term tenure. We can allow multigenerational farming families

housing options be­yond the current 90-square-metre allowance in

order to raise that second- or third-generation farm family. We can also

create a business climate in this province that supports farmers, who,

for the most part, compete in a global market on an uneven playing

field.

If we don’t pay attention, we risk the loss of family farming as

part of our culture. We all understand that food is important to our

society, but we should also appreciate that the knowledge and experience

it takes to grow that food are also critical.

Yes, let’s preserve the farmland, but let’s also focus on growing

some new farmers.

SUPPORT FOR TOURISM IN

OKANAGAN AND

SIMILKAMEEN

R. Russell: I appreciate the opportunity. You’ve all heard me speak in this

House about the challenges facing the South Okanagan and Similkameen in

their process of navigating fires, floods, freezes, and so on. These

cancelled reservations. They sent people away. They devastated crops.

The economic and social impacts of this are nearly unfathomable for that

area.

Now more than ever these communities, these businesses and the

families that rely on them really could use your vacation time in this

spectacular part of the world.

I have conversations, for example, with the Polka Dot florist

owner last year. She talked about how hard it was when she lost all of

her business, even though the skies were clear and the beaches inviting.

Similarly, I had the opportunity last weekend to visit Jessie and Sunny

at Lasters Orchard. They talked about how not only did they lose most of

their peach crop, but they lost half of their peach trees, they

expect.

Importantly for you, those peaches are not going to be coming to

you here. You have to come to the Okanagan now to get those peaches —

the Okanagan and Similkameen.

All across this area, there are all sorts of opportunities,

whether it’s wine, whether it’s fruit, whether it’s hiking, lounging,

racing carts. This summer is the time that you could come and help

support our communities by spending your time there.

[10:40 a.m.]

There are a number of events in the Similkameen, whether it is the

Chopaka Rodeo in July; whether it is Kars under the K in Keremeos;

whether it’s Sip and Savour, if farm-to-table opportunities are your

thing, at Klippers; or the Similkameen Sizzle Pepper Festival, if you

want to see how hot of a pepper you can eat. Many, many opportunities

there. The cider festival or the powwow in September.

Similarly, in Princeton, we have the Kettle Valley Rail Trail and

bird-watching at Swan Lake — so many opportunities. In Oliver, we have

the Wine Capital Weekend in late September, a kick-off party there. Cask

and Keg. Festival of the Grape. The Grape Stomp Competition. So many

opportunities.

My call for action for you is to come, spend some time and support

communities by doing the most fun thing you could imagine, which is

enjoying one of the most beautiful parts of this province and delicious

food.

LAUREN SIMPSON AND DOWN SYNDROME

COMMUNITY WORK AND

ADVOCACY

T. Halford: Two minutes will not do this local rock star in my riding justice,

but I’m going to do my best. I’m going to talk today about my friend

Lauren Simpson. Her work has impacted people within the intersection of

mental health, disability, seniors and women in poverty. Through her

work, she’s had multiple municipal, provincial and federal elected

officials talking about her impact.

Lauren recognizes that she comes from a group that needs

representation. As a woman and as a person with Down syndrome, Lauren

has made strides towards being a change-maker and someone who creates

meaningful and lasting impact on her community. She has consulted with

hundreds of people to bring housing to our community, including homes

for essential workers, teachers, students, seniors, people experiencing

poverty and people with disabilities. Lauren is kicking down the old

stereotypes that people with disabilities have support done for them,

and she is now demonstrating that people with disabilities advocate, and

they win.

Lauren has many accomplishments. She attends conferences,

meetings, housing forums, committees and other events to speak and

educate not only the community but the province on matters towards

better support of others. Her work and her dedication are exemplified

through her ongoing efforts. Lauren’s interest in affordable housing

comes from a community and personal need of affordable, inclusive and

accessible housing options for everyone.

In 2023, Lauren was recognized from the Peace Arch Hospital

Foundation as someone who is positive representation, who has had a

significant impact within their community. In 2023, Lauren was the

winner of the YWCA Women of Distinction 2023 category of Community

Champion. Most recently — I’m so proud of her — Lauren, in 2024, was

winner of the Surrey Board of Trade Women in Business Award in the

category of social trailblazer.

I cannot stress enough how this young woman has impacted our

community. She is the exemplary definition of what community should

be.

Lauren, congratulations on your achievements. We are all so very,

very proud of you.

MLA FOR VANCOUVER–WEST END

CONSTITUENCY

SONG

S. Chandra Herbert: I will start by giving apologies to all of you and especially to

John Fogerty.

Early in the afternoon, just after lunchtime,

got my

mobile office set up to chat for a while.

Just a little table set up

on Davie Street.

People stop to chat.

It’s how I work my

beat.

Down on the corner, out on Davie Street,

working for the

West End, my friends, in the rain and in the heat.

This constituent

talks health care.

This one talks the rent.

This one tells me

where he thinks the money should be spent.

This one wants to save

the trees.

This one wants human rights.

This constituent tells a

story about her later fights.

Down on the corner, over on Haro

Street,

working for the West End, my friends, in the rain or in the

heat.

Down on the corner, out on Denman Street,

working for the

West End, my friends, in the rain and in the heat.

You don’t need

any money just to hang around.

If you’ve got a good idea, come on

and make a sound.

Down on the corner, it’s open mic for all.

look forward to meeting you.

If I don’t see you, give me a

call.

[10:45 a.m.]

Down on the corner, out on Robson Street,

working for

the West End, my friends, in the rain and in the heat.

It’s the part

of my job I love the very best.

Working for my constituents makes me

feel blessed.

Getting good advice, making some new friends.

Now

my friends, this song must come to an end.

Down on the corner with

my office on the street,

working for the West End, my friends, in

the rain or in the heat.

Oral Questions

CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING

K. Falcon: Seven years ago this NDP government promised to make life more

affordable. And 18 months ago, this Premier specifically said we’d have

results that people could see, feel and experience in their daily

lives.

Well, the results are in, and today we discovered that those

promises are nothing more than empty words as we face the highest

grocery prices in all of Canada. In fact, just in the last six months,

British Columbians are paying $300 more a month for groceries. Stephanie

Watts, who is a first responder in Metro Vancouver, says: “It’s

exhausting constantly calculating the cost. It’s just not cutting it

anymore.”

My question to the Premier is: why is this Premier making the NDP

affordability crisis worse for middle-class families like Stephanie’s,

with relentless increases in the carbon tax driving up the cost of

essentials like groceries?

Hon. J. Osborne: The truth couldn’t be any more different than how the Leader of

the Opposition is putting this. Just yesterday we announced a quarter

billion dollars to help British Columbians save money on their home

heating bills, with rebates to support the installation of heat

pumps.

This is a government that understands that things are hard for

people right now. With the cost of interest rates, the cost of inflation

going up, we need to see more supports for people. That’s what this

government is focused on. Whether it’s reducing the fees for transit,

for youth, whether it’s adding to the supports that we provide through

the B.C. family benefit bonus, whether it’s supporting people to make

that transition to clean energy, this government is focused on people

each and every single day.

The other government talks about cuts, what would be cut. What

would they cut if they were sitting on this side of the House? I think

we know. We’ve seen that track record before.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. J. Osborne: We’re going to stay focused on supporting people.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, that answer just symbolizes how totally out of touch this

minister and this government have become.

I’ll tell you the first thing we’d cut. We’d cut the 60 percent

increase in the food bank lineups that have happened under their watch

because of their policies. And remember, it was this NDP Premier who

promised tangible results, and all we hear is that kind of empty

rhetoric.

Daily life in British Columbia, news flash to the NDP, comes with

the highest grocery prices in the country. A simple bag of groceries

costing over $73 in Vancouver is 24 percent more expensive than the very

same groceries in Calgary. Chicken breasts for the upcoming barbecue

season are $26 per kilogram, the highest in the country and double what

they cost in Calgary. That’s what people are experiencing every day

under this NDP government.

That’s probably why Tyson Southcombe from Langley moved to

Alberta. He says: “You can’t buy anything, especially people at my age,

and it gets harder and harder every day.”

My question is: is the Premier really surprised that once again,

under their NDP government, there is a record exodus of young people

leaving British Columbia, packing up and moving to Alberta, where our

residents here can’t even afford groceries anymore?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt people are facing some challenges with global inflation,

with interest rates going up. This is a challenge not only being faced

in B.C. It’s being faced by people across North America.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I disagree with the member when he talks about people coming to

British Columbia. I think it’s important for everybody in this House to

note that every 37 days, there are 10,000 net people coming to British

Columbia. Every 37 days, 10,000 net. We have not seen this level of

migration to British Columbia in the history of this province. People

see opportunity here. They see that we have a strong economy — in fact,

the strongest economy in the country.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition talks about carbon

tax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate they might not want to hear this, but they should

hear this.

I think it’s important to take a trip down memory lane to the

evolution of the Leader of the Opposition’s view on carbon tax. In 2008,

he said: “We knew the carbon tax wasn’t going to be particularly

popular, but I think in politics, at some point, you have to decide

whether you’re going to try to do the right thing or do the easy thing.”

Okay, that was 2008.

Let’s go to 2012. He said: “I think that if people want to believe

climate change is an issue, the warming of the planet is an issue, the

only sensible way to deal with that, I believe, is carbon pricing.

That’s the only way you’re going to change behaviour.”

The Leader of the Opposition may say: “Well, you know what? That

was a long time ago.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Last year he said: “If you want people to change behaviour, you

have to put a cost to it and ask them to consider shifting their

behaviour.” So what has changed between 2008 and 2023?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Clearly, he woke up and saw the poll numbers and saw that the B.C.

Conservatives are eating his lunch. That’s a shame, because Gordon

Campbell was a leader when it came to addressing climate change, and

he’s running that legacy into the ground.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON CARBON TAX

AND FUEL TAX AND

SPENDING PRIORITIES

K. Falcon: Well, sure, I’m happy to engage in this with the minister. Let’s

take that trip down memory lane, because in fact, in 2012, when I was

the Minister of Finance, I froze the carbon tax at 6.7 cents a litre. We

kept it frozen for the next five years, until an unfortunate error

allowed them to get back into government.

What did they do? They changed the second part about the carbon

tax. That was really unfortunate. Instead of making it revenue-neutral,

where every penny went back to British Columbians, they took it all into

government and more than doubled it. Now they want to triple it, and

they just increased it to 23 percent on April 1. That’s their

record.

The fact of the matter is, for individuals like Stephanie and

Tyson, they are so far worse off today, after seven years of this NDP

promising to make things more affordable. They just tend to forget about

the results they actually achieve: highest housing prices in North

America, highest fuel prices in North America, highest rents in the

entire country and the highest grocery prices in Canada.

Those are actually your results. You have to wear those results as

a result of the decisions you make.

The other result I touched on earlier, which is really sad, is

that we have seen the lineups at food banks increase by 60 percent.

Meanwhile, who are the NDP really helping out? Well, under this Premier,

annual payments to management consulting firms have more than doubled,

reaching over $220 million last year alone. Since 2018, the NDP has

spent $1 billion on consultants.

Now, instead of pouring $1 billion into management consulting

firms, this Premier, this NDP government, could have adopted B.C.

United’s plan. Eliminate the provincial fuel tax entirely, saving

British Columbians 15 cents a litre every time they fill up their car.

That would be real, significant savings.

My question to the minister, if he’s going to start taking these,

is a really straightforward one. Can you please explain, after

increasing the size of your government by 36 percent, why you need to

spend a further $1 billion on management consultants to deliver the

worst results we’ve ever seen in the country for people like Stephanie

and Tyson?

The Speaker: Always through the Chair.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, it’s a real shame to hear the leader of the BCU party, who

claimed to be a real champion when it came to addressing climate change

and talked about it as the greatest legacy that he was part of, of a

previous government. His actual words were: “I am actually very proud of

the leadership we have taken with the carbon tax. I think if you

accept….”

[10:55 a.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Let him talk, please. Members.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. R. Kahlon: He said: “I think that if you accept that climate change is an

issue, then pricing carbon is absolutely the right way to deal with it.”

What the shame of this whole thing is, is this. Under Gordon Campbell,

B.C. started down a path.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Under Gordon Campbell, we started down a path of real climate

leadership. What’s a shame about this entire thing is that this leader

kicked out the person who didn’t believe in climate change, didn’t even

believe it was man-caused, and now is chasing him down a really, really

negative place for this province.

The B.C. Conservatives don’t believe climate change is real. What

I don’t understand is: do they believe climate change is real or

not?

P. Milobar: Wow. The level of this government not wanting to take

responsibility for their failed promises and their failures on all sorts

of files is shocking.

Let’s be clear. Under us, carbon tax was capped at $30. Emissions

were actually going down, and it was revenue neutral. Under this

government, it’s climbing to $170 a tonne, and emissions are actually

going up worse than anywhere else in Canada. This government doesn’t

know how to implement anything.

While the NDP continues to inflate the prices for gas, rent and

groceries throughout all these record-setting deficits, with no end in

sight, the only people getting richer are insiders and management

consultants who are reaping the rewards. Last year alone, the Premier

funneled over $220 million into management consulting firms. This

includes hefty payouts like $62 million to Deloitte, $42 million to PwC,

enormous sums of tax dollars that enrich global corporations under this

NDP.

Rather than the $1 billion on management consulting, the Premier

should have adopted, actually, B.C. United’s plan to reduce the fuel tax

by 15 cents a litre. To the Energy Minister: that’s what we would cut.

The provincial fuel tax — full stop. Consulting firms are dining out,

while ordinary British Columbians simply can’t afford

groceries.

After increasing the size of the government by 36 percent, why has

the Premier spent a billion dollars on consultants with no tangible

results to show for it?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, down this track of carbon tax, I think the member asked the

question. He should just maybe look over his right shoulder to see the

member from Abbotsford who said: “I think people — well, the majority of

people — had the opportunity to consider the carbon tax in the last

election, and found it, on balance, to be a positive and progressive

initiative.”

Maybe he can look on the left of him to the member from Prince

George, who said: “I think people do want to see environmental

leadership in the province.” Obviously, the carbon tax is one of the

best things when British Columbia has led.

Maybe he looked left a little further, at his other colleague.

When the B.C. Conservative Party was actually talking about getting rid

of the carbon tax, he said: “Reducing the carbon tax is a valid thing to

say, but you could also explain what services you will cut.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: He said something. He said: “It’s great you can talk about it, but

what services will you cut to make up for that $5 billion shortfall?” I

can suggest that the leader of the BCU party here will make cuts,

because that’s what he did when he was the Minister of Finance in 2012 —

cuts to health care, cuts to services. People in British Columbia cannot

afford the cuts that he will bring to British Columbia.

P. Milobar: It’s pretty obvious that the Government House Leader, because they

have raised 32 new and increased taxes under their watch, actually can’t

even get the right tax that we are talking about. We are talking about

provincial fuel tax to the minister, not the carbon tax. The minister

doesn’t seem to understand the difference. It is a provincially

controlled fuel tax of 15 cents a litre that could be removed today,

saving British Columbians $1 billion, instead of spending $1 billion on

consultants.

In fact, the Premier’s office is already jam packed with special

advisers, yet they are still squandering on another $1 billion to get

other consultants’ advice. I don’t even know what this cabinet does,

with all the shadow cabinet’s work going on in the Premier’s

office.

Yet as these consultants cash in, British Columbians suffer the

worst results ever. Under this government’s watch, housing affordability

is worst in North America. Grocery prices have skyrocketed 30 percent.

Wait times at walk-in clinics are now the longest in Canada. We’re

sending patients for cancer treatment down to private hospitals, down in

Bellingham.

[11:00 a.m.]

B.C. United would instead spend that $1 billion on cutting the

fuel tax by 15 cents a litre and give people an actual break when they

go to the pumps.

Why has the NDP poured $1 billion into high-priced consultants,

instead of delivering actual, tangible cuts for people that would impact

their daily lives, trying to get around for work and for pleasure and

leisure, especially going into the summer season?

Hon. K. Conroy: I think we can all agree in this House that global inflation and

rising interest rates have caused grocery prices to go up and made

things expensive — right across the country, actually. We knew that. So

for Budget ’24, we made things more affordable for people by taking

action at the root causes.

We’re putting hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, back into

people’s pockets in this province so that they can deal with the

affordability of groceries and can deal with things like child care. We

are giving $500 more to families on the Family Bonus, something they’ve

never done. We’re giving people breaks on their electricity. We’re

giving breaks on ICBC.

Let’s remind everybody what the current leader of the BCUP did. He

hiked ICBC rates by 11 percent. They also hiked MSP. They used MSP as

their own little bank account. They put tolls on bridges….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, hold it.

Minister will continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

They don’t like to hear about these facts, but he gave tax breaks

to the biggest corporations in the province, where we’ve actually made

them pay taxes, because we know how incredibly important it is. And

they….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: One of the other things they don’t like to talk about is that

since we came into government, over 120,000 women have returned to the

workforce. A lot of them would say it’s directly attributable to our

child care program, something that they actually cut when they came into

government in 2001.

I just could go on and on. I just want to say that I know this

government is committed to people in this province. We’re committed to

making sure we’re not going to raise their taxes, and we’re not going to

make cuts to services.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

AND LOGGING

DEFERRALS

A. Olsen: For years, this government has talked in circles around the

important issue of protecting old-growth forests. This is more of “what

he says, and what he does.”

In his first 100 days, the Premier committed to protecting old

growth and prioritizing biodiversity and ecosystem health, yet another

legislative session has come and gone without any nod to old-growth

forests.

The old-growth strategic review was very clear on what is needed

to protect the high-productivity old-growth forests. British Columbians

have also been loud and clear: 92 percent of the population want some

protection for old-growth trees. Meanwhile, big trees continue to fall

under this government, making the province more susceptible to climate

change and biodiversity loss.

To the Premier, after four years of promises and commitments to

protecting old growth, where are we now?

Hon. G. Heyman: B.C., under this government, has taken more concrete steps to

protect old-growth forests and ecosystems in general than we have ever

seen in British Columbia.

There were many shortsighted approaches in the past, decisions to

boost raw log exports that led us to the challenges we’re facing

today.

We’re working in partnership with First Nations, with communities,

with people in the sector. We are conserving more ancient forests for

our children and grandchildren, and supporting a transition to more

sustainable forestry jobs for workers and communities. We’re

implementing the recommendations of the old-growth strategic review. We

launched a $300 million First Nations conservation fund, in partnership

with the B.C. Parks Foundation, to help protect more rare

forests.

On that announcement, Ken Wu, the executive director of the

Endangered Ecosystems Alliance, said: “Premier Eby has delivered. This

is a huge conservation victory for the many thousands of people who’ve

spoken up for years for this.”

[11:05 a.m.]

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: Forests in our province are burning. We get the Minister of

Environment standing up and answering on forestry questions — the same

Minister of Environment that failed to bring in species-at-risk

legislation, the same Environment Minister that failed to bring in

biodiversity legislation for the last seven years that he has been the

Environment Minister.

Old-growth forests are crucial habitat for many plants and

animals, including the spotted owl and mountain caribou. They’re

culturally significant for many First Nations, which harvest food and

medicines from forests that we’ve stewarded for millennia. They’re a

major draw for tourists, who come from all over the world to marvel at

these towering trees and their magnificence.

Decades of industrial logging have taken an immense toll on the

ecosystems and communities, and this government’s response is rhetoric.

More trees are falling. In fact, the volume of old growth cut increased

in recent years. Indigenous leaders and conservation groups are

demanding the government protect more old-growth trees. In the words of

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: “At this rate, there will be nothing left

for our children. Stop putting profit and votes over people…. Stop

logging our old-growth trees.”

My question is again to the Premier or the Minister of Forests.

When will his government fully fund the deferral process and provide

compensation to First Nations that lose revenue as a result of the

deferrals?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is simply incorrect. This government has taken more

action on a number of fronts to protect old-growth forests,

biodiversity, ecosystems and endangered species than we’ve seen in

British Columbia.

We formed partnership agreements to protect the southern mountain

caribou with nations in the northeast of the province and with the

federal government. We took measures to protect spotted owls, including

the captive breeding program. We have a process in place where we are

systematically working with First Nations to protect ancient trees,

ancient forests, irreplaceable old growth.

Yes, we are also supporting a healthy logging industry. We are

working to conserve ecosystems. We are putting ecosystem health at the

centre of the Forest Act, which was never the practice before. Along

with the federal government and private sector partners, we have

established $1 billion for conservation of ecosystems, species and

irreplaceable old-growth forests in this province. We’ll continue our

work. I just wish the member were paying attention.

WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT

J. Rustad: Here we are again with forest fires raging in this province of

British Columbia. You would think that after years, they would have

learned some lessons. Up in Fort Nelson, when the fire started up, there

were crews there ready to go. As a matter of fact, Terry, the president

of Fire and Flood, tells me his team was ready to attack the fire when

it was just a minor issue.

This NDP government chose to sit on its hands and not deploy these

crews. They just let it burn and burn. Now, of course, the crew that was

there has already left for Alberta. They’ve got other things they’re

doing in Alberta.

The real question is to the Premier. Why were all the resources

not applied that were available? Why were crews that were there ready to

put out that fire not made available, not put in there and let that fire

actually build to the place now where we have a potential serious

disaster on our hands?

Hon. B. Ma: What is happening to the community up in Fort Nelson…. I know all

our hearts and thoughts are with them. Nearly 5,000 people have been

evacuated over the last several days, and we’re incredibly grateful to

the host communities that have accepted them: Prince George, Fort St.

John, Chetwynd and Dawson Creek as well.

We’re incredibly grateful for the B.C. Wildfire Service responders

and the local fire departments who are continuing to fight the fire

right now.

[11:10 a.m.]

We’re actually quite fortunate that we had so many resources up

there in Fort Nelson, in the North, so early on in the year. Largely,

they were staging up because of the holdover fires up north.

The Parker Lake fire was not a holdover fire; it was a new fire.

We were able to divert those resources, up north, directly to the Parker

Lake fire to hold it back immediately. We are continuing to deploy

resources up there in the days ahead, and I know that we’re all hoping

for the best for that community.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

J. Rustad: The challenge here is that the initial attack was not done

properly. We did not pull the resources in. When you’ve got a company

like Fire and Flood Emergency Service, which has cutting-edge equipment,

cutting-edge water delivery systems to be able to attack fires, that is

not being deployed…. That, quite frankly, is just

incompetence.

It’s a pattern that has happened year after year after year by

this government. As a matter of fact, this very same company was sitting

in Kamloops, ready to be deployed last year on fires in Kelowna, being

paid $40,000 a day and not being deployed, not even being asked to go to

work, just being paid to sit there. This government has once again

ignored the reality of getting crews in quickly. Private sector crews,

local crews — getting them in to attack the fires.

The question once again to the Premier is this. When will this

government actually learn lessons from what mistakes have been made in

past years; when will they learn that they need to get their crews in

there quickly? They need to use locals to be able to attack these things

so that we’re not in a situation where we have to evacuate a community

like Fort Nelson.

Hon. B. Ma: I reject the characterization being put forward by the Leader of

the Fourth Party. B.C. Wildfire Service crews were in the area. They

were in Fort Nelson, and they were able to deploy very

quickly.

We have substantial resources in the area. We have air tankers. We

have helicopters, aerial resources. We’ve got ground crews with heavy

equipment. They are doing their utmost. I’m incredibly grateful to the

servicemen and women of the B.C. Wildfire Service and the firefighters,

the local fire departments, who are in the area right now deploying

structural protection to save the community.

COST OF LIVING AND AFFORDABILITY

ISSUES AND GOVERNMENT

PRIORITIES

T. Stone: Seven years ago the NDP made affordability their signature

election promise. They did it again in the election four years ago. And

18 months ago the Premier promised British Columbians, when it comes to

affordability, they would be able to feel and see and experience results

on that front.

For many British Columbians like Lesley, who’s a senior, who’s on

the brink of homelessness, these NDP promises ring hollow. She describes

her reality: “I never buy meat anymore. I live on salad and cottage

cheese. The price of groceries is ridiculous.”

The NDP promises also ring hollow for Glenna, who is grappling

with soaring grocery bills. She says: “It’s insane. I’m a single mom of

a two-year-old, and my weekly grocery bill is hundreds of dollars more

today than it used to be. I come home with a box of diapers and wipes

and food for my toddler while I eat frozen dinners. It’s absolutely

ridiculous.” While Glenna is forced to live on frozen dinners just to

make ends meet, management consultants dine out on $1 billion from this

NDP government.

B.C. United will remove the carbon tax on farm protection, and we

will eliminate the fuel tax of up to 15 cents per litre. All of which

will help to lower the cost of groceries.

My question to the Premier is this: why is the Premier wasting

millions of dollars on a jam-packed Premier’s office and $1 billion on

consultants instead of adopting B.C. United’s practical solutions, which

would give people like Lesley and Glenna the break that they deserve and

that they need when it comes to grocery costs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt the challenges that are being faced with global inflation

and high interest rates are having a disproportionate impact on seniors.

One of the biggest pressures that seniors are facing in communities

across British Columbia, across the country, is the cost of housing.

Housing is central to the challenges seniors are facing, whether I talk

with the seniors advocate or different seniors organizations.

That’s why we have the largest investment in affordable housing

for seniors and for other people who are struggling in our communities

in history. One of the largest in the province’s history. In fact, the

largest in the country.

[11:15 a.m.]

We know that for two decades, there were not enough investments

being made in affordable housing. We’ve dramatically increased that.

That’s why we also expanded SAFER, to ensure that more seniors had

access to those dollars.

We know this is important. We respect that people who’ve worked

their entire lives and contributed so much need to have those supports.

We’re committed to continue to support them during these challenging

times.

R. Merrifield: Housing? The minister stands up and brags about housing in B.C. We

have the highest cost of housing in North America, highest rents in the

country, and he’s bragging about those results.

Look, news flash to this NDP government. Across B.C., people are

struggling to make ends meet. This is the reality for Anita Lau. “It’s

spend less, eat less, socialize less. We just try to

survive.”

B.C. United has a plan to cut the cost of living, scrap the carbon

tax on home heating, eliminate the fuel tax and actually restore the

dream of home ownership by reducing taxes and doing a rent-to-own plan.

Meanwhile, this NDP’s lack of plan involves wasting $1 billion on

management consultants while bragging about their housing strategies.

This is exactly why Anita and countless others don’t see any relief from

this government, this Premier or that minister.

How much longer will the Premier ignore the cries for help from

people like Anita, continuing to funnel funds to consultants rather than

supporting those who desperately need relief?

Hon. K. Conroy: We know that our population is aging in B.C., so we have taken

action to support seniors and give them the support they need to live

vibrant and independent lives.

We’re helping more seniors stay in their own homes longer. We’ve

put in $354 million over three years to strengthen home and community

care for seniors. I have never met a senior who said: “I just can’t wait

to get into the seniors facility.” They want to stay in their own home.

So we want to give them the support to make sure they can stay in their

own homes longer.

We’ve also given more access to home support workers, health care

workers, people like physiotherapists and occupational therapists who

are helping seniors stay mobile and stay in their homes — and more help

with day-to-day activities like grocery shopping, rides to appointments,

making sure seniors get those supports.

We’re actually building more seniors facilities as well, in many

communities like Abbotsford, Richmond and Nanaimo. And we’re helping

seniors with costs. They’re also getting the electricity affordability

credit. They’re getting the climate action tax credit boost and the new

renters tax credit. For those that are still driving, they’re getting

flat rates on ICBC, which they will continue to get.

We want to make sure that we’re supporting people. It doesn’t

matter whether they’re young people, middle income or seniors. We want

to make sure that we have those affordability credits in place for

people, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do in this

province.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Hon. M. Dean: I rise to present a petition from areas in Metchosin requesting that

the House create a mentorship program that allows people interested in

learning more about MLAs and the provincial legislative process to shadow an

MLA in their work.

The program would work by people applying. Their application would get

reviewed, and then they would be paired with an MLA with similar interests

and background. People in the program would get to go to the Legislature and

see what an MLA does and what it’s like to be an MLA. That would lead to

more diverse perspectives in the political process.

Hon. N. Cullen: I seek leave to table reports.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

Hon. N. Cullen: I have the honour to present the provincial health officer’s report

Clean, Safe and Reliable Drinking Water: An Update on Drinking Water

Protection in BC, 2017-18–2021-22 .

Reports from Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

P. Milobar: I am pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing

Committee on Public Accounts for the fifth session of the 42nd

parliament titled

Summary of Activities 2023-24 .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[11:20 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

P. Milobar: In moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make some brief

comments, if I may.

The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts reviews the

reports of the Office of the Auditor General, engaging in important

discussions and providing a public forum for the scrutiny of the

economy, effectiveness and efficiency of government programs and

services.

This report summarizes the committee’s work from April 1, 2023, to

April 3, 2024, including its examination of five performance audit and

information reports on government’s administration of a variety of

program areas. The committee also reviewed the Auditor General’s reports

on the financial audit work for fiscal year ’22-23 and approved the

financial statement audit coverage plan for the auditing of provincial

summary financial statements over the next three years.

On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank the

Auditor General, Michael Pickup, and his staff for the important work

that they do.

I’d also like to thank Carl Fischer. He had dedicated many, many

years of service as a comptroller general for B.C. and has now retired,

but he made many appearances before the committee.

The committee looks forward to continuing to work with the new

comptroller general, Nicole Wright.

I would also like to express my appreciation to all committee

members — including the Deputy Chair, the member for North Coast — for

their hard work and dedication. It’s a lot of meetings packed into

evenings while we’re in sitting. It makes for long days, but they do

great work.

J. Rice: I, too, would like to acknowledge all committee members —

including the Chair, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — for their

contributions to this committee.

Over the course of the year, the committee considered reports on a

wide range of program areas, including diversity and inclusion, fraud

risk management and cybersecurity. This year the committee also reviewed

the Office of the Auditor General’s first annual follow-up report on

performance audit recommendations made in 2019, 2020 and

In undertaking this work, the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts helps to promote public sector oversight and accountability in

British Columbia.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Office of the

Auditor General, the office of the comptroller general and the numerous

senior public servants who took the time to appear before the

committee.

Finally, I would also like to extend a thank-you to the staff from

the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services who have helped

the committee in its work.

Thank you to all who contributed.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the chamber, I call second reading of Bill 26, Name Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill

25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call the estimates of the Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General, followed by the estimates of the

Legislative Assembly and Officers of the Legislature.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — NAME

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2024

Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 26, the Name Amendment Act (No. 2), be now read a

second time.

I rise today to speak about some important amendments to the Name

Act that were introduced yesterday in this House.

This bill will prevent convicted criminals and individuals who

have caused serious harm to others from evading accountability and

avoiding the negative consequence of their actions by legally changing

their names. Specifically, the amendments would prohibit a legal name

change by persons who have been convicted of prescribed offences, are

declared a dangerous or long-term offender or are found not criminally

responsible for a prescribed offence due to a mental

disorder.

To support this prohibition on legal name changes for offenders,

the bill will amend the Name Act to enable the Vital Statistics Agency

to request, receive and review the results of criminal record checks for

applicants who seek to change their names and will provide additional

regulation-making authorities so that offences can be prescribed for

purposes of the new prohibition.

[11:25 a.m.]

Currently the Vital Statistics Agency issues vital event and name

change certificates and administers the Name Act, which sets out

procedures for legal changes of a person’s name, including conditions of

eligibility, the process for applying for a legal change of name and the

related duties and responsibilities of the registrar general.

Currently the act describes persons who are entitled to change

their name and establishes eligibility criteria, including residency and

age requirements as well as consent requirements in the case of

minors.

The act currently does not identify any persons who are prohibited

from making a legal name change. Therefore, individuals who have been

convicted of offences that have caused serious harm to others and

individuals found not criminally responsible for those offences are not

barred from applying for a name change.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Under the current act, individuals who are eligible to make a

legal name change for themselves or their minor child between the ages

of 18 and 19 are required to initiate a criminal records check within a

30-day period before filing a name change application. However, under

the current act, the registrar general does not receive the results of a

criminal record check, and information about an applicant’s criminal

record does not enter into the decision of whether to grant a name

change. That is one of the things we are changing, together, in this

act.

In addition, there’s nothing currently in the act that would

specifically prohibit a name change being granted to persons with a

criminal record or individuals found not criminally responsible for

serious offences. Once a name change for one of these individuals is

registered by the registrar general, the registrar general issues a name

change, change of name or certificate to the applicant, which can then

be used for purposes of changing their identification, such as drivers’

licences.

This bill would amend the Name Act so that a person who has been

convicted of a prescribed offence, declared to be a dangerous or

long-term offender or found not criminally responsible for a prescribed

offence due to a mental disorder will be prohibited from making a legal

name change.

For the purpose of this name change prohibition, the offences will

be identified by regulation. They will include Criminal Code of Canada

offences that are dangerous and cause significant harm to others, such

as homicide or aggravated sexual assault and offences that target

children.

It’s important to note that the new prohibition would apply to a

person making a change-of-name application on their own behalf, as well

as to a person on behalf of whom someone is making a name change

application — for example, a minor on whose behalf a parent with custody

or guardianship is making an application.

The name change prohibition will apply to adult offenders, those

18 and under, as well as young people who have not reached the age of 18

who are convicted of prescribed offences and sentenced as adults. Under

federal legislation, as members will know, in certain circumstances,

prosecutors can seek an adult sentence when a young person is found

guilty of a serious violent offence such as murder, attempted murder,

manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.

With respect to the circumstances of young persons under the age

of 18 who have a youth sentence rather than an adult sentence imposed,

the amendments have been drafted to allow for deferred application of

the new provisions.

In order to allow the registrar general to receive and review the

criminal record of an applicant, the amendments will require an

applicant to file with the registrar general the results of a criminal

record check or an authorization for the registrar general to carry out

a criminal record check or verify the results of a criminal record check

for purposes of the new prohibition. Details relating to the required

criminal record check process will be prescribed by

regulation.

Lastly, the bill includes consequential amendments to the Adoption

Act and Vital Statistics Act to ensure alignment of name change

processes with the new criminal record check requirements and

prohibitions for offenders in the Name Act.

In my view, and I hope and I believe the view of this House,

allowing dangerous offenders to hide their identity through a legal name

change is extremely troubling to victims and their family and can result

in safety concerns for members of the public. This legislation will

prevent dangerous offenders from evading accountability and avoiding the

negative consequences of their actions by legally changing their

names.

I appreciate, and I say this to all members of this House, that

this bill was introduced late in the session. It’s a bill that we’ve

worked and ensured that all opposition parties have been briefed on, and

I appreciate their participation and involvement in those briefings. I

think it’s an important step for us to take together to ensure that

everybody is safe.

We have made changes, over time, in the way that we deal with

change of names, and they are important for many people in our

communities. The Name Act, while it is not regularly debated in this

Legislature, is important to a lot of people.

[11:30 a.m.]

This change, I think, is an important change that not only

reflects community values but reflects a commonsense approach to how we

deal and protect and support those people who are victims of crime and

the broader public safety of the community.

We have acted, I think…. I want to express my appreciation to our

staff teams who have acted, I think, effectively and expeditiously on

this question.

I just want to say, finally, that we know of specific cases these

issues apply to. We know there are often, and this is the reason we have

debates in this House, unintended consequences of actions. In 2011, we

made a change in the way that we make public a change of name. It was

done for many, many good reasons. It was done by the Ministry of Health

and the registrar general at the time. What it meant was that there was

not publication of name changes. That had positive and negative effects,

but I would say principally positive effects. It continued to be the

policy after that time.

The changes we are making today are pretty clear. If you commit a

prescribed offence, a serious offence of violence against another

person, a crime against children, you don’t get to change your name. You

don’t get to make a legal name change. I think that’s the right

approach, and I ask all members of this House to support it.

K. Falcon: Just for the benefit of the viewing public here, I want to tell a

little bit of a story about legislation and how it works through the

system here. But I want to emphasize right from the outset that I stand

here very proudly supporting the minister’s introduction of Bill 26, the

Name Amendment Act.

Having been in government myself, having been a Minister of

Finance, Minister of Transportation, Minister of Health, Minister of

Deregulation, I know that not all the best ideas come from government.

Sometimes that’s hard when you’re in government, because you assume that

you got elected for that reason, therefore all the fount of knowledge

must come from the government side of the benches.

This introduction, this bill, I think, is a real expression of

sincerity on the part of government to recognize that sometimes,

occasionally even the opposition may have good ideas that are worthy of

being introduced in a bill that bring forward a change that benefits all

British Columbians. I think this is a very good example of

that.

I want to give the public a little bit of an understanding about

why we are talking about something that sounds very boring, like the

Name Amendment Act. Well, it’s because there was a bit of a public

uproar when the public learned that there’s an individual out there that

is, unfortunately, well known, Allan Schoenborn, who had applied to

change his name.

Mr. Schoenborn is a particularly egregious offender who murdered

his own children and caused a huge amount of alarm in the community when

they learned that not only is he applying to be released from his

current incarceration but that he had in fact changed his name three

years ago, back in May of 2021.

As a result of that, I as the Leader of the Official Opposition

introduced a private member’s bill on the Name Amendment Act to close

forever this ability of those that have committed serious offences or

could commit serious offences from being able to use the Name Act to

allow them to potentially show up in some other community, avoiding

accountability because the people would not be aware that they have

someone potentially very dangerous perhaps even as a

neighbour.

I want to commend the minister for bringing forward a bill which I

think, frankly, improved even on the bill that I had introduced as a

private member’s bill. Again, another example of where the government

looks at a piece of legislation and brings together the professional

staff and the drafters to say: “Look, here are some other areas that we

can look at.”

The minister touched on many of those, so I don’t want to be

repetitive at all. But the

section where even those found not criminally

responsible on account of mental disorder, of which Alan Schoenborn

would be a very good example, would be included in this….

[11:35 a.m.]

Including those young offenders who may have been charged, have

not yet reached the age of 18 but have been convicted of serious

prescribed offences and sentenced as adults…. The tragic situation here

on Vancouver Island of Kelly Ellard, I think was the name, comes to

mind. So it captures those sorts of situations and protects the public,

as the public should be protected, from something like this.

I do want to say thank you to the government for recognizing and

bringing forward what is a very important bill, Bill 26, the Name

Amendment Act. I thank them for taking a suggestion, if I could be so

modest, from the opposition that this is important enough that we should

put it through.

While we’re very late in the session, it’s certainly something

that the official opposition is proud to stand up and

support.

S. Bond: I, too, want to stand in this place today and just reflect on a

couple of things. I’d like to begin by talking a bit about the process,

as our leader has already referred to.

I want to begin by thanking the minister and his staff in

particular for very quickly providing a briefing to the members of the

opposition. That is an important part of understanding, especially at

this time in our legislative session.

I especially want to recognize Theresa, in the minister’s office,

who works so constructively with all of us — I’m very grateful for that

— on a regular basis and very grateful for the briefing being

provided.

I did want to just take a moment today to talk a little bit about

the process that we’re going through here today, because it does matter.

It is really about…. There’s been a lot of talk about how we better

utilize this chamber, this place. From my perspective, and our leader

captured it so very well, good ideas don’t come from one side of this

House. People are elected to come here and bring ideas and thoughts

about the kinds of changes that need to be made in British Columbia. I

think it’s incumbent upon all of us to, in essence, have the courage and

will to say: “That is a good idea.”

This morning my colleague, for example, brought a private member’s

bill that talks about land titles in British Columbia. We’ve spent days

in this Legislature talking about anti-racism, yet here we stand, I

think — I don’t know how many times — for about the third time. We are

talking about eradicating discriminatory clauses based on your race,

ancestry or place of origin. My answer to that is: just do it. So many

other poignant bills brought by other members of the House over the last

number of weeks….

Today we see a bill where a private member’s bill was tabled. Not

only did the Leader of the Opposition bring a private member’s bill; the

public spoke up. Here today we see that government has now responded. As

our leader pointed out, we are generally…. We are supportive of this

bill. I, obviously, will have a few questions for the minister at

committee stage. He and I are very familiar with that process and

actually work through those in a constructive way.

But before we talk about the content of the bill, I do want to

say, as a long-time legislator, it is sad that we do not do this more

often. It is absolutely our responsibility. In fact, I would point out

to the minister that in cabinet ministers’ mandate letters, they are

told to work with people across the aisle, across all of the parties in

this Legislature.

I just, on a personal note, want to reflect on the relationship

that I have with the Minister of Health. I would suggest that he is an

example…. Not always. We’re still working on defibrillators in British

Columbia. I’m going to continue to raise that issue. But I can honestly

say that this is a minister who is willing to have a dialogue with us

and say: “Let’s find a way to get there.” I have said that publicly

before, and I’m saying that again today. I think that is reflected in

the work that we’re doing here this morning.

[11:40 a.m.]

I should also point out that we are late in the legislative

session to be introducing two bills when we have substantive legislation

in front of us. So it’s not our intent to make this a lengthy process.

But it is important that with every bill that’s presented in this

Legislature, MLAs have the opportunity to reflect and provide feedback

and, at times, scrutiny of bills that are placed. We’re certainly seeing

that in some of the much larger bills that are in front the House as we

speak.

Reflecting on the process is important, and I hope that future

governments look at ways to actually embrace ideas that make sense for

British Columbians no matter where they come from in this chamber. That

matters to me a great deal. It’s hard for governments to do that. It was

hard for our government; it is hard for this one. But today is about

making sure we move forward with something that is essential.

This bill, when we think about how…. The minister and I have

debated many bills, some that had over 600 clauses. This one only has a

few, comparatively speaking. But it brings a great deal…. It is a very

important bill.

What it does, for people who may not know…. When we’re talking

about a bill that’s called the Name Amendment Act, it could mean a lot

of things. This bill will ensure that if people in British Columbia

commit horrific crimes, they will not be able to hide from their past.

And that’s what this is about. It supports survivors, especially

survivors of violent crimes and their families.

Imagine having your life altered forever by someone, and if that

isn’t enough trauma, the perpetrator gets to inflict further trauma.

How? By changing their name. How on earth is that fair to families in

British Columbia? The bill today will ensure that that does not happen

again in our province. In essence, what practice has allowed is a

perpetrator to hide, to blend in.

I did want the minister to also…. Yesterday, when we were talking

about where this happens elsewhere…. British Columbia now joins other

jurisdictions. I think that’s really important to note because other

provinces have already advanced legislation — in provinces like

Saskatchewan, in provinces like Alberta. Recently there has been a bill

tabled in Manitoba.

I do want to say that it is important to note that this bill does

bring an additional provision, one that is not in place in other parts

of the country, and I am very grateful for that. By including the

particular situation where a person is found not responsible due to

reasons of mental illness, mental capacity — that does not exist in

other jurisdictions. That would effectively capture the person who many

of us have on our minds this morning, Allan Schoenborn.

When we think about Saskatchewan…. They moved ahead in 2020.

Alberta then followed as well. Alberta and Saskatchewan currently have

jurisdiction in place. When I was doing my homework, one of the things

that a minister said in Alberta, for example, was that this is a

Canadian issue. It is not just a British Columbia issue, because there

is nothing to stop a person from leaving one jurisdiction, going to

another jurisdiction and getting their name changed. The work has to

continue.

I do recognize and acknowledge government’s ministers in Alberta

and Saskatchewan, who, as far back as 2020, actually looked at this type

of legislation. Again, they do not include the specific clause that

talks about being not criminally responsible because of a mental

disorder.

The minister reflected on that with me yesterday about how

important that was. It does differentiate British Columbia from other

jurisdictions across the country. I think that we certainly agree with

that perspective and that position.

[11:45 a.m.]

It is incredibly important legislation. I think what all of us

want to reflect on today is, while it certainly closes what many would

consider a loophole, think about what it means for survivors and

families who live with trauma forever.

Let us reflect for a moment on Allan Schoenborn. He was guilty of

three counts of first-degree murder. He murdered his children. They were

five, eight and ten years old. Allan Schoenborn was able to apply to

have his name changed and, in fact, was successful. I want to say to the

House and to British Columbians today: he will always be known as Allan

Dwayne Schoenborn, despite the fact that he was granted the ability to

use a new name. That name is Ken John Johnson.

One of the questions we’re going to talk about when we go through

committee is…. Obviously, there’s not a provision and probably not the

possibility of retroactivity, but this is not acceptable. The minister

in his remarks, which I appreciated very much today, made it clear that

he understands the pain and the suffering that families have gone

through, now only to find that a person who murdered his own children

has the ability to change his name with the hope of blending in, of

hiding his past.

That is absolutely not acceptable in British Columbia or anywhere

else, for that matter. We know and we agree with the minister that if

you are a dangerous offender or a perpetrator of horrific crimes in

British Columbia, you will from now on be forced to live with your name.

That is part of the consequence for behaviour that is as heinous as that

committed by Allan Dwayne Schoenborn.

As we go through the bill, we will talk a little bit about the

content. I think it’s important to reflect also on the fact…. The

minister very correctly described the bill in the House today. There

will also be an opportunity for young offenders…. If they are charged

and convicted as adults, they will also be precluded from having their

names changed. Again, I think that reflects a very horrific thing that

happened in the past.

I think my sadness today is only that we can’t go back. Those are

questions we’ll explore in committee. But what we can do is send a

message to families today in British Columbia. We hope, more than

anything, that these circumstances never happen in our province. I think

all of us remember the images of those days when Allan Schoenborn

committed three murders — but not only that, caused fear and terror. I

remember the images of the manhunt, basically, that took

place.

Today, together in this Legislature and over the course of the

process that moves us to approval of this bill, we are doing a good

thing and the right thing in the Legislature today. No matter where the

bill came from, no matter who brought it to the table, the fact of the

matter is that today is a good and important day.

I would just urge members in this chamber, especially those who

hope to be back in this place, that we have a responsibility to think

about how we do things here. When you have private members’ bills that

could improve the quality of life for people in this province, we need

to set aside partisan political differences and put British Columbians

at the front of our agenda.

I thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. The official

opposition will be voting in favour. We will obviously be working our

way through committee. I think we may have another colleague or two who

would like to speak to this bill. With that, I am very grateful for the

time. I am grateful for the discussion with the minister yesterday and

also his remarks in the chamber this morning.

[11:50 a.m.]

M. Morris: I, as well, was pretty happy to see this bill come before the

House. I applaud our leader for bringing this forward not too long ago

as well and that government has acted on this.

As a former police officer of a number of years — I spent 32 years

in policing — I’ve seen a number of very hardened, heinous criminals

take advantage of this and change their name to try and escape these

terrible crimes that they’ve committed on people in our country and

elsewhere as well.

Our justice system is…. The rule of law is paramount in Canada,

and it’s upheld very stringently by the court system that we have. But

oftentimes, the public feels a little bit let down, and the victims of

crime feel let down, when they see the accused people receiving

sentences that are far less than what the public think it should be. The

victims in particular relive these horrendous situations for the rest of

their lives.

When somebody can go and change their name to drift into obscurity

and disappear from the wrath of the public for committing such a

terrible offence against humanity and people, that’s something that

needed to be addressed.

I applaud the government and the minister for bringing this

forward, because it does address this. It does block a couple of

loopholes in there for dealing with young offenders who have been tried

as adults and convicted and those that have demonstrated that they

didn’t have the mental capacity to form the intent to commit those

criminal offences at that particular time, as this particular case has

noted. I really applaud the minister for that, and I applaud government

for bringing it forward.

It’s a very tight, tight timeline on this. I haven’t seen this

much before, where a bill is presented only moments before the session

is ended for the year and for this particular government as well. Again,

this is something that I think all my colleagues support.

I hope we’ll see this go through the process fairly quickly and be

approved so that the victims of crime can rest assured that this will

never happen again.

E. Sturko: I, too, rise very supportive of Bill 26. I do also want to thank

the minister, but also to congratulate our leader. I think that this is

an example of a good idea coming forward and being accepted on both

sides of the floor.

Like my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, I was a police

officer before. I have worked on investigations as well with very bad

things that have happened. This is a bill that’s not only about

preventing people from escaping their responsibility, but it goes far

towards helping to protect the community, to protect people from those

who, whether it’s as a result of their actions they’ve planned or as a

result of actions that they are deemed to be not criminally responsible

for due to a mental defect…. That the public can know the identity of

these individuals.

Especially now, when we have things like all these dating apps,

when we have opportunities to actually do some personal background

checking on individuals before taking personal risks, it’s important for

people to have access to things like knowledge about a person’s

identity. Certainly, I feel very appreciative of and some comfort,

actually, in knowing we’ve seen, over the last couple of years, some

very dramatic crimes that have taken place where, certainly, public

awareness has actually been paramount in ensuring safety.

I also agree with the member from Prince George who talked about

the impact that the murder of the three children had on British

Columbia. I can still remember the manhunt as well. Even in recent days,

seeing the public was made aware of that man’s attempts to have his

conditions changed to go out in the public and the outburst that that

individual had then in that hearing, it’s frightening to think that

someone who was deemed not criminally responsible then, ultimately, has

shown very little in terms of actually coming to terms with what he’s

done, would be allowed to change his identity.

[11:55 a.m.]

I think this is a good bill that really goes towards providing

some comfort to British Columbians. I’m pleased that the government

embraced our bill and introduced their own bill. Of course, we’re going

to support the passage of the Name Amendment Act, which addresses a

critical loophole. Again, I’m proud that our leader, Kevin Falcon,

introduced his bill last month to close this loophole. I want to commend

the government’s decision to move forward on this important issue and

follow B.C. United’s lead on our advocacy on this element of commonsense

public safety.

We’re glad to see that the government is finally taking some of

the necessary steps to address this problem because a timely

intervention is crucial in preventing further misuse of the name change

process. The legislation will prevent further abuses of the name change

process. As I said, it will enhance public safety and confidence in the

justice system.

I look forward to further debate as this moves through the

legislative process but want to say that I’m glad that the NDP has bowed

to some of the pressure here and done the right thing to close this

glaring loophole.

Deputy Speaker: House Leader, Third Party.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would you like me to reserve…?

Deputy Speaker: At this stage, if you want to make extensive remarks, probably

best to do that, because I think we’ve got about five

minutes.

A. Olsen: Okay. I’ll just reserve my spot and note the hour.

A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House will be adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. Thank you,

Members.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 25;

N. Simons in the chair.

The committee met at 11:28 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I’m going to call Committee of the

Whole,

Section A, to order. We are working on Bill 25, the Haida

Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 2 (continued) .

M. Lee: I wanted to come back to two points that were made in committee

yesterday.

At the time I said to the minister, when the minister mentioned

what the Premier has said…. We had that exchange about what the Premier

has said in terms of the…. The quote that the Premier had said in one

context was that “the stars are aligned in this moment, and if we can,

on both sides, demonstrate that this is successful, then I think it

makes it more possible to do it in other places in British Columbia and

also in Canada, because it’ll provide a bit of a template for everybody

about what the world of the possible is.”

The minister, of course, yesterday emphasized the words about the

world of the possible. We’ve had several ex­changes about that. I

would note that in the lead-up to that quote that the minister is

referring to, the Premier does say: “I think it makes it more possible

to do it in other places in British Columbia and also in Canada because

it’ll provide a bit of a template.”

[11:30 a.m.]

The statement, though, in addition…. There the Pre­mier did

use the word “template.” He used it again in the context, in effect, in

the interview with Justine Hunter back on April 15. The lead-in says, as

I quoted before: “Mr. Eby called the agreement historic and said it

offers a new model for resolving Aboriginal land claims.”

She goes on for a direct quote from the Premier. “This agreement

won’t only raise all boats here in Haida Gwaii — increase opportunity

and prosperity for the Haida people and for the whole community and for

the whole province — but it will also be an example and another way for

nations not just in British Columbia but right across Canada to have

their title recognized.”

We have the words “new model,” “example,” “template.” This is the

reason why we continue to spend the time we spent, as the minister well

knows, about what this is and the clarity that we want to have in Bill

I would also just comment on the minister’s last response to me

about: why isn’t it that we just don’t have, in the bill, fee simple

interest on lands excluded from what is being recognized on Haida title?

Given the fact that the Haida Nation…. In ways that the minister has

described, both pointing to the agreement as well as the consent

confirmations, both in the agreement and the bill itself, effectively,

that the Haida Nation is confirming and consenting that the estates in

fee simple continue and are confirmed….

The minister, in his second response to me, talked about the fact

that…. Well, the thing is that fee simple lands were included in the

Haida submissions and their claim before the courts. If we followed the

drafting style or approach that I am suggesting or asking about, then it

would be back in front of the courts.

The minister said: “Ironically, if one were to take the position

that the member suggests, I do think it’s a suggestion made in good

faith, and I appreciate it. Had that approach been taken, I hope the

member would realize that we would then have fee simple still before the

courts.”

The whole positioning, though, of course, of what the Haida Nation

and the government has been negotiating and trying to get to is an

agreement. What the bill does, as well, is demonstrate the agreement

between the Haida Nation and the province of British

Columbia.

What I’m asking about is clarity and certainty that currently,

right now, the questions that we’ve raised and had discussions about at

length — in terms of the opportunity for or the coexistence of

Aboriginal title with fee simple interests as being an unsettled area of

the law — the province and the Haida Nation are making it very clear by

agreement, and that’s what the minister has said.

Well, the Haida Nation has also made it very clear in the words

that the minister has read out that they consent to that fee simple

interest continuing undisturbed in a way that suggests that it’s

protected in perpetuity, in the words that the minister used.

So if that’s the case, then why not just separate fee simple

interests from the actual definition of Haida title here, given that it

is protected in perpetuity?

There’s an agreement about recognizing fee simple interest. In

fact, in the bill itself, in clause 4.3, it says: “The following

interests in and rights in relation to the land on Haida Gwaii, whether

arising before or after this

section comes into force, are confirmed and

continued: (

a) an estate of fee simple; (

b) an interest in or right in

relation to land that derives from burdens or otherwise relates to an

estate in fee simple.”

That is confirmed in the bill itself. All I’m asking about is why,

in the definition of Haida title in sub 4.1(1), the recognition of that

as described in the

schedule of the act, fee simple interest isn’t just

excluded from that definition? That doesn’t mean that we don’t still

have in the agreement recognition of fee simple interests — or even this

language in 4.3. The whole reason is that there is an agreement as to

how fee simple interests are to be dealt with.

[11:35 a.m.]

That’s what the Haida Nation have said in the agreement and in

this bill. I’m asking a question as to why we don’t just take that one

step further. Wouldn’t that make it simpler in terms of any of the

underlying concerns and questions I’ve been raising about how this all

fits together? That’s the reason why I had raised it.

I will just pause here to see if the minister has any further

comment on that. If not, I’m happy to ask my next question.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for the

question.

I want to say, by way of beginning today’s debate, for those that

are watching at home…. I’m told there is a great number of people,

particularly in Haida Gwaii, that may wonder where we are in this

process.

We are on what is called clause-by-clause debate. There are eight

clauses in the bill before us and, of course, an agreement. We have

spent 15 hours. We have approved clause 1. Clause 1 adds a new heading

to the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

I just wanted to put that on the record for those that are

wondering why this debate is taking the form that it is and taking so

long. We have, indeed, completed one clause, which adds a

heading.

I’m pleased to see in the gallery today Doug White, who is the

Premier’s special counsel on reconciliation.

The member started with what has been the subject of several

questions, I think, about the nature of what the Premier said in the

introduction of this historic bill. I, frankly, don’t think it’s helpful

to go back and repeat some of the answers I’ve given on so many

occasions thus far.

He then proceeds to reiterate his point about the drafting

approach that he is proposing, which is different than the process that

we have come up with. We, of course, believe that our approach clarifies

that fee simple interest will continue and that the best way forward for

those fee simple owners on Haida Gwaii is to confirm and continue, both

in the agreement and the act, that their interests are protected in

perpetuity.

We stand by that drafting approach. We think it is best for all

the reasons I tried to articulate yesterday.

M. Lee: In terms of the response of the minister to my questions relating

to a different drafting approach…. I appreciate the minister’s response

today. This afternoon we’ll have further discussion about that

point.

I appreciate what the minister has said here, including the

reference yesterday that he believes and would take that I’m doing this

in good faith.

In reference to the minister’s first comment…. I appreciate that

he did not go on at length about the time we’ve expended to date. I

won’t either. Only to say….

Those of the Haida Nation and those other First Nation leaders

across the province, including in this gallery, will appreciate…. Again,

as I’ve said, there’s the underlying agreement between the Haida Nation

and the province of British Columbia. That was entered into on April 14.

It’s not yet in effect. It’s not binding yet.

There’s the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself, which was put in

place a year ago through 45 minutes of committee review by ourselves. I

did support that recognition at the time, with the official opposition,

and still do.

[11:40 a.m.]

I do think that it’s important to understand the clarity around

both the self-governance provisions in

section 1 and the interaction

with the title recognition under

section 4 of Bill 25, as I discussed at

length yesterday with the minister.

The reference to the Premier, of course, Mr. Chair, was only in

response to the minister raising it. I just think it’s important, as we

continue to talk about the use of this new model of recognition of

Aboriginal title, that it’s understood what the Premier had said. That’s

what we continue to be focused on. That’s the reason why we’re taking

this amount of time.

I wanted to come back to

section 4.4 in clause 2. The minister

made reference to this yesterday as well, in terms of the sections of

the agreement — 4.19 and 4.20. I would expect that that, of course,

reflects itself in sub 4.4(3) of the bill itself, in clause

Can I ask the minister: why is there a difference in wording,

other than the fact that it’s a bill versus an agreement?

In terms of the actual thrust, the confirmation that the parties,

during the transition period, will continue to use the processes under

the reconciliation protocol and the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act…. I

know the minister has said and acknowledges it was put in under the

former B.C. Liberal government, now B.C. United — all of that. Why is

there a difference in how this is expressed in 4.20 and 4.19 and in the

way that sub 4.4(3) is expressed?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I want to say to the member that when I used the expression

“recognizing that he is proceeding in good faith,” I meant that

sincerely. I want the record to note how much I respect the process

we’re engaged in and the member’s participation in it. Lest there be any

doubt of that, I need to clarify and confirm that.

The member asked a very specific question about the

interrelationship between two sections of the agreement — namely, 4.19

and 4.20, and how they relate to sub 4.4(3) of the act. I’d say at the

outset that the bill, to no one’s surprise, speaks to the statute books,

if you will, to the people of British Columbia entirely, as any bill of

the Legislature would,

whereas the agreement is specific to the parties

to the agreement and those affected by the agreement.

As a general rule, the process is clarified in the agreement, and

I’ll come to that, under 4.19, 4.20. But the general provisions,

including the constitutional recognition, are set out in 4.4. Perhaps I

can explain what I mean.

The member did not reference, but I think it’s important to note,

that subsection (2) of 4.4 is probably the main event. As the member

will know, the introduction to sub 4.4(3) uses the phrase “for

certainty,” so it is an effort to clarify what has been said in the

preceding clause, which is so key.

It says: “Enactments of British Columbia in relation to Crown land

continue to apply in relation to land that is held by the Haida Nation

in aboriginal title.” With that assertion, however, clause (3) goes on

to say: “For certainty, those enactments…that are applied by subsection

(2) in relation to land that is held by the Haida Nation in aboriginal

title are to be administered consistently with that aboriginal title and

section 35 of the Constitution Act.” That’s the bold, broad contours of

our work.

Now let’s zero in on what that means specifically to

decision-making on Haida Gwaii. That’s the burden of the agreement, and

that is the process set out in 4.19 and 4.20, which says very clearly

that land and resource management decisions under provincial

jurisdiction are to be made consistent with Haida Aboriginal title.

Nothing new there. That’s consistent. But: “During the transition

process, the parties will use the decision-making processes derived from

the…protocol and the…reconciliation act as amended to align with Haida

Aboriginal title.”

The member is absolutely right. Thanks to the good work done by

the parties — the government of British Columbia, under the leadership,

then, of the B.C. Liberal regime — the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act

was put in force. That has a joint decision-making process that’s worked

so well. It’s unique to Haida Gwaii, yet another reason why this is so

unique. And we’re going to continue to do that, as modified, as we go

forward with decision-making with respect to land and resources on Haida

Gwaii.

I think the general provision for the statute book and the

specific process set out in the agreement are aligned very, very nicely

in what we are examining.

With that, I would like to move the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY

AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); K. Greene in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:27 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C,

to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the

budget estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,068,431,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Minister, do you have opening remarks?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, not opening remarks but just an answer to the member for

Parksville-Qualicum’s question yesterday. I’m going to read into the

record the answer to that, and then my friend across the way, from

Saanich North and the Islands, can start.

The member for Parksville-Qualicum asked about the Oceanside

detachment. I can provide the following response. The Oceanside

detachment is an integrated detachment. It includes the Oceanside

provincial unit, with an authorized strength of 13 regular members; the

Parksville municipal unit, with an authorized strength of 17 regular

members; and Qualicum Beach municipal, with an authorized strength of

eight regular members.

As of April 1, 2024, the adjusted vacancies for each of the

business lines are as follows. The Oceanside provincial has an adjusted

vacancy rate of five regular members — three hard vacancies, two soft

vacancies; Parksville municipal had adjusted vacancies of three regular

members, soft vacancies; and Qualicum Beach had an adjusted vacancy rate

of one regular member, which is a hard vacancy rate.

The provincial investment. In that it’s the second year of the

three investments, only the Oceanside provincial unit would be eligible

for funding under this investment, as municipalities with a population

over 5,000, Parksville and Qualicum Beach, are responsible for the

provision of policing within their municipal boundaries.

However, the RCMP and the police services branch are working

together to ensure that existing gaps and vacancies within the

provincial police service units are identified and addressed. To date,

the province has not seen a request from the RCMP for additional support

for staffing in the Oceanside provincial unit.

[11:30 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Just a question with respect to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle)

Amendment Act. It’s on concerns being brought to us with respect to the

changes that were made not working as they were intended.

Despite the promises that the act would improve care for victims

of crashes, we’re hearing many stories of the no-fault program leading

to worse outcomes, of ICBC adjusters going against recommendations of

medical professionals and about issues of cyclists and pedestrians,

especially those who might not have an ICBC insurance policy, getting

the proper compensation.

ICBC just rebated $395 million in individual rebates. How does the

minister square the reality that the promise of the no-fault system that

was brought in is not reconciling with the reality that we’re facing on

the ground with giving such a large amount of money back, noting the

fact that people are not receiving the compensation they

deserve?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d have to disagree with the premise of the question. Enhanced

care is working. It’s working in terms of people getting the care they

need faster, sooner and for longer periods of time than they ever did

under the old tort system, where you would often have to wait, sometimes

years, for a tort to be heard in a court. The benefits they receive are

for a lifetime, if necessary.

I’ll just give an example. If someone was injured, under the old

system, in an accident that was their fault, the maximum benefit they

would receive was $300,000. If they were in a serious accident that left

them as a paraplegic, that’s all they got to last the rest of their

life. Now, under the enhanced care system, that care is there for as

long as you need. At the same time, 96 percent of what’s taken in or

paid by the claimants is paid to the claimants. It wasn’t that way

before, when you had the legal fees that were coming out.

In terms of the rebate, ICBC is able to do that because not only

are we now being able to meet the minimum capital test but, because of

the solid investment performance, we are then able to put back in the

pockets of policyholders that $400 million in terms of rebate, which

they have paid into the corporation, that has been generated for the

corporation by investment income.

[11:35 a.m.]

So the system is working the way it’s intended. Are there issues

that come up with cases? Of course there will be. That’s why we’ve got

the fairness officer in place. That’s why there’s the civil resolution

process in place for people to be able to access. So all of those things

are in place, and the system is working.

Now, as I said yesterday in answer to a question, can it improve?

Of course it can. Any system can improve. ICBC wants to work and make

sure that those improvements are taking place by constantly upgrading

the skills and training of its employees and looking at changes that are

taking place in terms of, you know, how car insurance is put in place,

the kinds of care that people need, all of those things. But the system

is doing what it’s intended to do, and we think it’s a significant

improvement over what was in place before.

A. Olsen: I don’t have any further questions for ICBC, so I’m going to be

switching gears. Thank you to the ICBC staff for hanging around for what

amounts to a single question. I appreciate it. Nice to see

you.

I do want to ask the minister…. In Bill 17 debate earlier this

year and then as followed up in question period, both the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Minister of Environment

indicated their willingness to implement accountability measures for the

B.C. conservation officer service. As I understand it, either the

minister has to amend the act to include it as a police service, or the

minister that’s responsible for it — and, in fact, the head of the B.C.

conservation service as it’s currently structured — needs to come and

ask the Minister of Public Safety….

There were suggestions by both ministers that this project was

going to happen. I’m wondering if the minister can provide a timeline

when we can expect that for the public to be able to

understand….

I guess maybe I should ask this question first. Has the Minister

of the Environment approached the Minister of Public Safety and

requested that the B.C. conservation service get the appropriate level

of oversight, that the people of B.C. can expect the same level of

protection — actually, that the conservation officers can expect the

same level of protection that other officers with unlimited appointments

get? Has the Minister of Environment made that request and, if so,

what’s the timeline for implementation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What I can tell the

member is that we are currently working with the Ministry of Environment

on enhancing the independent oversight of conservation officers. Policy

and legal analysis are underway on regulatory options, to apply

independent oversight. The analysis includes consideration on the scope

of the oversight that can be applied to special provincial constables.

If a regulatory model is feasible, the ministry would look to introduc