Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, February 14, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 147

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Richard Fyfe

Hon. D. Eby

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 4 — Skilled Trades BC Act

Hon. A. Kang

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Chamber of Commerce Week

J. Brar

Chamber of Commerce Week and B.C. Chamber of

Commerce

P. Milobar

Chambers of commerce in Chilliwack-Kent

K. Paddon

Rob Burgess and health care in Whistler

J. Sturdy

Langley Hospice Society

M. Dykeman

George Ing

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Tax policies and affordability issues

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

Tax policies and gas prices

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Primary health care services in Saanich North and

the Islands

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Government response to Lytton fire and access to

properties

T. Stone

Hon. M. Farnworth

C. Oakes

M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report for year ending March 31,

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Review the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Merrifield

A. Olsen

M. Lee

K. Greene

Hon. G. Heyman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 4) Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. J. Osborne

D. Ashton

M. de Jong

A. Olsen

E. Ross

M. Lee

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: Today Frances Shepherd, from my riding, is celebrating a very special

birthday. She’s celebrating her 100th birthday. I know she’ll be watching at

home. I was wondering if the House could please congratulate her on this

milestone birthday and wish her a happy birthday.

R. Glumac: I would like to introduce a couple of my constituents, Ken Holowanky

and his wife, Shannon, who are spending a very romantic day at the

Legislature today for Valentine’s Day. Would the House please make them feel

welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’d like to introduce Adam Gagnon. He is the Hereditary Chief Dsta’Hyl

of the Sun House Laksamshu clan. It’s a real delight to meet with him. May

the House please make him feel most welcome.

us get our information, that there’s a member of this House who’s

celebrating a birthday. The member for Peace River South is celebrating not

his 100th birthday but maybe his 40th or 45th birthday. I’m wondering if the

House would join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.

[1:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader. Oh no. Certain things never

change.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Kamloops-North and Kamloops-South often get mixed up. So do Peace

River North and Peace River South. It’s actually Peace River North’s

birthday today as well. North and South have the same birthday.

Will the House please congratulate them as well.

Tributes

RICHARD FYFE

Hon. D. Eby: Happy Valentine’s Day to you, hon. Speaker. And it’s not just

Valentine’s Day. It’s a very significant day for the Ministry of

Attorney General.

Our Deputy Attorney General, Richard Fyfe — this is his last day

in his role as Deputy Attorney General. Now, I know members on the other

side of the House have also had the opportunity to work with Deputy Fyfe

in his many roles throughout his public service career, which is

incredibly well respected — and certainly, as it should be.

I had the pleasure of working with Deputy Fyfe for five years.

During that time, he led incredibly important work around reform of our

provincial auto insurer and around implementation of the Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, as well as all the other many and

countless legal challenges that governments of all stripes face in

responding to the challenges of the day.

Now, I acknowledge that I didn’t provide due warning to the other

side that this was Deputy Fyfe’s last day, but I do recognize several

members who worked with him, and I know we all greatly appreciate his

contributions to us all.

Personally, I can say he made me a better Attorney General. He

made me a better person, I think, as well. He’s very thoughtful,

patient, kind and can deal with a crisis with a smile on his face. I am

so grateful, personally, for knowing the man. And I have to admit,

having seen him whisper in the ear of the then government, now

opposition, over many estimates periods, I was skeptical at the

beginning about working with him. But now I don’t know quite how I’ll do

it without him.

I wanted to thank Richard Fyfe very much and his family for

supporting him through all of this work over all these years.

Introductions by Members

K. Paddon: Joining us here today is my son, Nic. He is a very, very big reason

why I am here today, so I am very grateful to him. He’s turning 17 on

Thursday. He loves history and Planet of the Apes . I would ask you

all to please join me in welcoming him and saying happy birthday.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — SKILLED TRADES BC ACT

Hon. A. Kang presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Skilled Trades BC Act.

Hon. A. Kang: I move that Bill 4 be introduced and read a first time

now.

Mr. Speaker: Carry on.

Hon. A. Kang: Trades training continues to be a major priority for the province

given the shifts in the labour market, the demand for skilled workers

now and the projected demand for skilled workers over the next

decade.

Today we are introducing the Skilled Trades BC Act. This bill will

replace the current Industry Training Authority Act. It creates the

regulatory framework to support the implementation of skilled trades

certification that will provide good-paying jobs and help build the

highly skilled trades workforce we need to grow B.C.

We’re also changing the name of the Industry Training Authority,

the Crown responsible for B.C.’s trades-training system, to

SkilledTradesBC. This is a reflection of the ITA’s expanded mandate as a

regulatory body as well as their enhanced responsibility for developing

the skilled trades.

I’m excited to introduce this draft legislation and believe it is

a critical next step to build a highly skilled trades workforce that

offers opportunities for all British Columbians.

I move that Bill 4 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: One step at a time.

Members, first things first. The question is the first reading of

the bill.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Minister.

Hon. A. Kang: Now I move this step.

I move that Bill 4 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 4, Skilled Trades BC Act, 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)

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WEEK

J. Brar: This week is Chamber of Commerce Week. Our province has declared

February 14 to 18 Chamber Week here in B.C. I want to acknowledge the

B.C. Chamber of Commerce and its network of more than 120 chambers and

boards of trade across the province for everything they do to help

people and businesses in their communities.

Chambers have been a strong advocate for businesses throughout the

pandemic and during the extreme weather events this year, helping

businesses and communities. Whether they are rebuilding after the fires

and floods or simply getting through this difficult wave of COVID-19,

they offer critical support and resources for businesses navigating

challenging times. Chambers provide businesses and organizations with

economic opportunity, workplace development and education, international

trade, government advocacy and business connections.

Thanks to their support, B.C. continues to lead the country in

economic recovery, with more than 100,000 jobs added in 2021. B.C.

remains the best place to do business in Canada. Our unemployment rate

is the lowest in Canada at 5.1 percent, and our job recovery rate is now

102.4 percent compared to pre-pandemic levels.

We will continue to seek advice from the chambers of commerce and

boards of trade across the province to make life easier for small

business owners, help the sector thrive and create good jobs for

people.

On behalf of the province of British Columbia, I thank the B.C.

chambers of commerce and boards of trade for their important work and

advocacy. We look forward to continuing to work with you to build an

inclusive, sustainable and innovative future that works for all British

Columbians.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WEEK

AND B.C. CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE

P. Milobar: We all know it’s been a difficult few years for businesses across

British Columbia. The COVID-19 pandemic has had impacts on all of us,

and while we have respected public health measures and restrictions, we

have also recognized the challenges that businesses have been

facing.

Many have been forced to shut down due to lost revenues. Others

continue to struggle to keep their doors open. Then there were the

climate disasters — the wildfires, the floods and the heat dome — which

caused catastrophic damage to businesses, farms and ranches. Yet

throughout all these difficult times, one thing has remained constant:

they’ve had the support of our local chambers of commerce.

As we mark B.C. Chamber of Commerce Week, we recognize the network

of chambers across B.C. that collectively further the interests of

businesses through collaboration, promotion and advocacy. The B.C.

Chamber of Commerce has been a prominent voice advocating for adequate

supports for our businesses during these challenging times.

As we work to ensure our province and its economy recover from

events like the pandemic and natural disasters, it is important we work

together with our chambers to build an environment where businesses can

not only survive but thrive, where innovation and inclusivity are deeply

supported and where businesses can be competitive once again.

The chambers represent businesses large and small. They provide

that voice to those employers and entrepre­neurs that maybe only

have two or three employees. They provide that voice to the larger

employers in British Columbia as well, to be that connection to all

forms of government, be it local or provincial. These are the values

that the chamber promotes on a regular basis, but they are never more

important than now, as we emerge from these extremely impactful

events.

[1:45 p.m.]

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for allowing me to take a few moments to

recognize the chamber during this start of Chamber of Commerce

Week.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

CHILLIWACK-KENT

K. Paddon: Today is Valentine’s Day as well as the beginning of Chamber Week.

I rise to share some love for our local businesses and the chambers of

commerce that support them.

I’d first like to share about the Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce,

led by executive director Leanna Kemp. This chamber is celebrating 118

years in our community, supporting our local businesses.

Just a few of their accomplishments benefiting our business

community in the past year include the creation of Community Cares

campaign videos, showcasing 20 local businesses that were focused on

keeping our community safe, and the launch of an Indigenous education

program through a partnership with Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe, focused on

reconciliation.

They supported our community through the flood event and relief

effort by finding temporary accommodations for residents and sponsored

and organized meals for those who were displaced. They also organize and

host Coffee with Kelli, a series of virtual chats where businesses can

ask questions, share thoughts and discuss ideas and concerns with

me.

The Chilliwack-Kent area is lucky to have another chamber of

commerce as well — the Harrison-Agassiz Chamber of Commerce, which

represents businesses in the two dynamic and different communities of

Harrison Hot Springs and the district of Kent. This past weekend I had

the pleasure of attending their most recent initiative: Celebrate Your

Community, Shop Local, Love Local event.

It was great to join mayor of the district of Kent, Sylvia

Pranger, and Coun. Susan Spaeti; mayor of Harrison Hot Springs Leo Facio

and Coun. Samantha Piper; Gwen Schmidt from Community Futures North

Fraser; and, of course, event coordinator Laurie Rolston and Stephanie

Gallamore of Tourism Harrison.

As we opened the weekend event and celebrated our local

businesses, folks had the opportunity to join in on the love with a

family-friendly photo op with Cupid, hot chocolate at the

Agassiz-Harrison Museum and a photo contest.

Our chambers of commerce are important supports to our incredible

local businesses. I am happy to show them some love today and say: thank

you for all you do.

ROB BURGESS AND

HEALTH CARE IN

WHISTLER

J. Sturdy: Today I’d like to recognize Dr. Rob Burgess for his outstanding

contribution to the practice of medicine in Whistler. Rob died this past

September at the age of 71 after a short battle with cancer, and he is

survived by his wife Jan, daughter Micky and son Johnny.

Rob first arrived in Whistler in 1978, where he established

Whistler’s first 24/7 on-call doctor service. Rob was a pioneer of

full-service family practice in Whistler. He was the founder of the

Whistler Medical Clinic, where he was family doctor to countless

Whistler residents over the decades.

To supplement his medical practice, he also joined the Whistler

Mountain ski patrol as an on-hill doctor and began an incredible system

of on-mountain pre-hospital care. His work established a baseline for

many of the mountain’s emergency and medicine protocols that are still

in place today. Rob and his colleagues pioneered providing medical care

in remote mountain settings, and his commitment to the community

contributed to the evolution of Whistler’s health care system to the

high standard that exists today.

I had the pleasure of working alongside Rob during my many years

as a patroller at Whistler-Blackcomb. He had incredible dedication to

his community, sometimes working straight through shifts in his medical

practice, then patrolling and then into his role as a national ski team

doctor. It wasn’t unheard of for him to work 35 hours straight. If a

baby was being born, he got the call. If there was an accident on the

highway, he got the call. If he attended a ski injury on the mountain,

he was often the first one there.

Serving as a physician in Whistler for 43 years, it’s clear that

Burgess leaves behind an enormous legacy, which will carry on through a

Whistler Health Care Foundation fund set up in his name. It will support

primary care initiatives in the Sea to Sky corridor to ensure that Rob’s

vision of relationship-based longitudinal care for everyone in Whistler

lives on.

He will be missed.

LANGLEY HOSPICE SOCIETY

M. Dykeman: I’m thrilled to rise in the House today to recognize an

organization that is so important to our community. Since its

incorporation in 1983, the Langley Hospice Society has provided quality

palliative care and bereavement care for our growing Langley community.

Since day one, they have had the dream of a permanent

hospice.

After receiving confirmation of $5 million in capital funding from

the B.C. government and Fraser Health, they still needed to raise more

than $2 million to fulfil the dream.

[1:50 p.m.]

Despite pandemic challenges, the community stepped up to provide

the necessary additional funding, and the amazing new 15-bed hospice

broke ground in the summer of 2020. It’s fondly known as “the house the

community built.”

I’m excited to say it is nearly complete and set to open its doors

very soon, hopefully by May. So many community members stepped up to

make this dream a reality, far too many to list today. Outside the

facility, local businesses such as SiteOne Supply, Burnco Landscape,

Cedar Rim Nursey, Surrey Cedar, Gawley and Son and Timmermans

Landscaping all donated time and supplies to make the exterior courtyard

that the hospice encircles an oasis of peace and tranquility.

I would also like to mention the important work of the hospice

staff. I know that Ann Walsh, executive director, and Shannon Todd

Booth, communications development director, have been working tirelessly

for many years to bring this project to fruition, along with many

volunteers and all of the people who give their time to the Langley

Hospice Society and Second Story Treasures.

Thank you to the board of directors who have worked so hard to

make this dream a reality. Our community is so fortunate to have such a

dedicated and generous community. Because of this hard work, Langley

will be able to benefit from a new, larger and more modern facility,

providing support for patients and their families, while providing

comfort and dignity during these difficult times.

GEORGE ING

T. Wat: I rise today to honour the incredible life of someone our

community of Richmond was truly blessed to have. Lt. Col. George Ing

passed away last week at the age of 89.

George served a long and illustrious career in the Royal Canadian

Air Force, where he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel, the first

Canadian of Chinese heritage to achieve this rank. He served as a

decorated representative in our Canadian Armed Forces abroad in Europe

and in the United States and finished his career as commander of the

Canadian Forces base in Chilliwack, after which he retired.

George’s service to our communities and to Canadian veterans did

not end with his military career. He was actively and highly respected

in the Chinese-Canadian community as a founding member of the Chinese

Canadian Military Museum and a leading member of the Army, Navy, Air

Force Veterans Pacific Unit 280.

I had the incredible honour of working closely with George when I

served as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism in 2013 to 2017.

George served as a member of the Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council —

which I set up to shape the path forward as our government recognized

and apologized for the historical wrongs committed against Chinese

Canadians — and left behind many legacy initiatives for our province and

our community.

George is survived by his son, Ted Young-Ing, and granddaughters,

Nimkish Young-Ing and Aisha Young-Ing. My heart goes out to all his

friends and family, who will miss him deeply and dearly. Richmond has

lost an incredible volunteer and a strong community leader, and many of

us, myself included, have lost a great and dear friend.

Please join me in honouring the incredible life of an incredible

Richmondite, George Ing.

Oral Questions

TAX POLICIES

AND AFFORDABILITY

ISSUES

P. Milobar: Every day British Columbians are finding it harder to get by under

this government that seems to think they can tax their way to

affordability. New figures released today show that the provincial

average housing price is well above $1 million, up 24 percent alone last

year and, in fact, 34 percent on the Island. At the same time, Vancouver

has the highest gas prices in the country and set a record of over a

buck-80 a litre this weekend.

[1:55 p.m.]

The answer to everything from this Premier and Finance Minister

has been a blizzard of new and increased taxes, and it simply has not

worked.

Will the Premier admit that his approach of trying to fix

everything by taxing his way out of it for affordability has

failed?

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to thank the member for his question, although I do reject

the premise.

I do understand, and not just in my community but communities

right across British Columbia and indeed across Canada, people are

struggling. Affordability is the number one issue in poll after poll

after poll, and that’s not just what we see in the papers. We’re seeing

this in our constituency offices as well.

I do reject the notion that the member wanted to leave the public

with — that somehow we were taxing people. We were doing away with

taxes. The medical services premium plan that was baked in by the former

Finance Minister, now the leader of that party, was built to go up year

after year after year, and we’ve eliminated it, putting money back into

people’s pockets.

The very same former Finance Minister used to use the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia as his own ATM machine, taking hundreds of

millions of dollars out of the corporation, therefore out of people’s

pockets. What did we do? We’re putting money back into people’s pockets

by reforming the system to make it more effective to protect those that

are hurt in an accident and making sure they can do it in a

cost-effective way.

We provided a child opportunity benefit. And all of those in here

and, of course, back at home who have children over the age of six, when

the former government did away with the child benefit, now will be able

to collect that benefit — some $650 for a family of two children — till

the age of 18, because we all know that kids get more expen­sive,

not less expensive, as they grow older.

I could talk about doubling child care spaces. I could talk about

the new supply we’re bringing on to reduce home costs. But I’m sure

there will be a supplementary question. I want to save something for the

end.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: The Premier and his gang of the mutual admiration society over

there may think that life is more affordable in this chamber, maybe.

It’s not in the real world. I hate to break it to the

Premier.

The average family of four is paying over $3,600 more in rent

under the NDP. You need to earn an extra $50,000 this year just to try

to afford to buy a house. In fact, if you had to fill up your minivan

when the Premier took office, it would take about $95; today to take the

kids to play soccer, $140 — $45 more to fill up your car under this

Premier’s watch. And nearly a third of that cost is taxes going up, the

highest-taxed gas in North America.

Grocery costs are skyrocketing. Beef and pork costs are up 18

percent, after six straight months of high inflation. Nothing from this

Premier. And if you’re looking for a home to start a family, the Premier

has made it impossible. We already know rents have gone way up. Last

year under this Premier’s watch, it took 34 years to try to be able to

afford a down payment on a home. Now it’s 36 years.

Will the Premier finally admit he has failed to tax his way to

affordability?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, what I love about the B.C. Liberals is that when they get a

narrative, they just stick with it: “Forget the facts. Forget the

reality on the ground. This is our position, and we’re going to stick

with it.” We somehow raised taxes for ordinary British Columbians, when

we did the exact opposite. We reduced costs.

The member from Kamloops wouldn’t have had to pay an unfair toll

to cross the Port Mann Bridge. Oh, wait a minute. Yes, he would have.

But all of the members in Surrey on this side of the House are here

because this government is putting people first, reducing costs right

across the board.

He mentioned rent increases, and I just want to highlight that

under the old regime, it would have been 2 percent, plus inflation. But

we took that 2 percent away. What does that mean for someone living in

Abbotsford? That’s $750 less for rent in a year. In Kelowna, it’s even

more than that at $930, and if you live in Burnaby, your rent is $1,000

less than it would have been on your watch, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order. Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate you’ve got a line, and you need to stick with it.

When facts get in the way, you should stand up and say: “I’m sorry. I

was incorrect. The Premier’s right. They’re reducing costs for British

Columbians.”

TAX POLICIES AND GAS PRICES

S. Bond: Well, I don’t know what alternate universe the Premier is living

in, but let’s be clear. Can you imagine how infuriating it would be if

you were sitting at home today trying to figure out how you’re going to

make ends meet? What do they hear? A Premier standing up and patting

himself on the back when they are struggling day after day.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Premier, not once but in two elections, promised British

Columbians that he would make life more affordable. It hasn’t worked,

and he knows it.

Let’s be clear. British Columbians need and deserve better. They

need more help; they need more support. The people of British Columbia

have sat by for five long years, watching this NDP Premier make promises

about how life was going to be more affordable for them.

Let’s look at what he said when it came to gas prices. What did

the Premier do? Well, here’s what he said: “If there’s an opportunity to

have the province step in and help, we’ll do that.” Well, here we are —

five years. What did the Premier do? He built a website that cost

$640,000 in one year — for a website — and did absolutely nothing to

bring down gas prices.

Maybe the Premier can get up again and explain to British

Columbians how he broke his promise that he was going to deal with gas

prices and instead did nothing.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again another example of the Liberals grabbing on to something. I

think that what we discovered in 2017 and again in 2020 is that the

people who used to raise costs for British Columbians were rejected not

once but twice by the people of British Columbia — and they will be

again.

We have spent every single day listening to British Columbians and

reducing the costs that were imposed upon them by the former government,

whether it’s medical services premiums, whether it’s tolls, whether it’s

putting in place a speculation tax to get the money laundering and the

speculation out of our housing market and taking those revenues and

driving it into building more supply.

I’m delighted to look at the two members from Kamloops. We have

built more student housing at Thompson Rivers University than they built

in 16 years.

It’s all well and good for the Leader of the Opposition to say:

“What are we going to do today? I don’t know. Let’s make up some stuff

about the economy.” The people of British Columbia have been working

hard for the past two years, working with their communities…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …and working with the business community, with organized labour to

have the highest mini­mum wage in the country to make sure that

we’re putting people first.

That’s why we’re here, and you’re over there.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, we’re used to the government side of the House talking about

years back, but I think, if I’m correct, those student housing units

were built in 1986. That’s even further back.

Maybe it’s time…. Maybe it’s time….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s have some order, please.

Order. Members will come to order.

Continue.

S. Bond: Maybe it’s time for the Premier to actually look in the mirror

when he talks about who taxes. This Premier…. I can’t actually keep up

with the number. It’s either 23, 24, 25. I think it could be 25 new or

increased taxes, on that Premier’s watch.

Interjections.

S. Bond: Exactly.

Instead of concentrating on generating revenue in British

Columbia, this Premier relies on one thing, and that’s British

Columbians’ back pockets. He has done absolutely nothing about gas

prices. Well, in fact, he has. He’s actually made it worse.

Let’s be clear. This is the Premier that wasted millions of

dollars on a failed legal battle — to do what? — to actually protest the

TMX project, only to find out that that supply was critical to gasoline

in British Columbia. And boy, didn’t we find that out during this year’s

devastating floods?

In 2018, the Premier said this: “We’re monitoring gas prices, and

we will take steps if it’s necessary.” Well, the question to the Premier

today…. Four years later, people are struggling to get by, every single

day. He promised life would be more affordable.

To the Premier, just when exactly is the right time for him to

keep his promise on gas prices in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess the official opposition doesn’t get access to the same

economic data that they used to. If they had, they would know that B.C.

has the strongest economy in the country, the lowest unemployment rate

in the country, despite the most challenging two years in B.C. history,

whether it be because of the global pandemic or natural crises from the

unimaginable over the past two years.

[2:05 p.m.]

In the past 4½ years, real wages have gone up by 24 percent. What

did they go up, in the previous 4½ years? Five percent. The small-minded

thinking of the people on that side of the House was keeping wages

down.

We’ve seen the highest minimum wage in the country as well as the

strongest economy. I guess that makes them uncomfortable, because the

only reason that they stepped onto a podium in the election campaign was

to say: “We’re better than the other people.”

Well, it turns out you’re not. We are all in this together, but

we’re on the side of people. You’re on the side of the big

corporations.

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN SAANICH NORTH AND THE

ISLANDS

A. Olsen: As the Minister of Health will know, access to a primary health

care service in Saanich North and the Islands is impossible. In fact,

the situation is getting more challenging as doctors in my riding are

retiring. Access to a family doctor was a top priority of mine in 2017

when I was first elected, and I hosted the minister to a town hall in

Sidney. Now five years later, and thousands of my constituents still do

not have a relationship with a primary health care service.

This government put in some effort into creating a primary care

network and urgent care clinics, but there are still more than 800,000

British Columbians without a family doctor. That’s nearly 15,000 in my

riding alone. The urgent care clinics are not meeting the needs of our

community.

The minister knows that without consistent, reliable primary

health care, the result is negative long-term outcomes for my

constituents and an increased burden on the public health

systems.

I’m interested in knowing: does the Minister of Health believe in

the equitable service of health care to all British

Columbians?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know, because we’ve worked together on some of

these issues in his constituency and the south Island, the commitment of

the government to addressing primary care in our communities. It’s

meant, for example, an increase well above the increase in the

population in family practice doctors across B.C. It has meant primary

care networks — four in the Victoria primary care networks, two in the

south Island, which includes his constituency — which are significant

investments in primary care across the south Island.

So $70 million for primary care, just in the south Island. That’s

four PCNs in Victoria, two in the south Island, five urgent and primary

care centres, three community health centres — which is a model that had

not been encouraged for quite a long time but we worked together with

communities to do — and a team-based, nurse practitioner–led centre in

Victoria. These are significant efforts that show across the board the

effort that needs to be made to do exactly what the member is talking

about, which is to ensure people have access to primary care.

What’s also important, as he notes, are existing practices, and

it’s important to support them. That’s why primary care networks were

developed with family practitioners, with the visions of family practice

to meet those needs. Those challenges will continue, because as he

notes, there are some challenges, especially in the south Island with

populations of professionals aging as well as the broader population.

It’s something that we have to continue to work together on to ensure

people have equitable access to primary care.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: Well, the minister finally got to the point of the question, which

was, I guess, to suggest that he believes in the equitable delivery of

primary care to all British Columbians, which is important. Because

despite all of the numbers that the minister just rattled off, the fact

of the matter is that the situation in my constituency is not improving.

In fact, it’s getting worse. In fact, across the province, there is a

growing inequity in the access of primary care.

Last summer dozens of desperate constituents of mine, whose

doctors’ clinic introduced a $50 annual continuity of care allowance,

wrote me seeking my advocacy. While they reluctantly paid the fee to

keep their service, they were right to point out that it goes against

the promise of universal, equitable health care for all British

Columbians. Other clinics are also looking at the option of these

membership fees.

Now a multi-billion dollar corporation is getting into the

business. Telus Health MyCare provides a virtual walk-in clinic billed

to MSP insurance. But if you want a so-called premium service, like

annual screenings, preventative health and advanced diagnostics —

services which used to be part of a basic primary health care — you

would have to pay for that out of your own pocket.

[2:10 p.m.]

What does the Minister of Health say to my constituents who are

now being forced to pay a membership fee for basic primary health

care?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I would say that we brought into force in 2018

provisions of the Medicare Protection Act to protect people against

extra billing. We did that because we fundamentally believe in public

health care, just as we have done in his constituency in bringing home

support back into the public system, in bringing workers back into the

public system. Across the board, we have made those changes.

With respect to the question of employee-based plans where you see

people paying for non-medically necessary services beyond the health

care system…. The member may listen to that — what we’ve done — and what

we’ll continue to do.

We have, in B.C., the Medicare Protection Act. We have the Medical

Services Commission. Their job is to enforce that, and that very

question I have referred to the commission to ensure that the law in

British Columbia applies to everyone, everyone is treated fairly,

everyone is treated equitably and our universal health care system

applies to everybody.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO LYTTON FIRE

AND ACCESS TO

PROPERTIES

T. Stone: Well, 230 days ago the village of Lytton burned to the ground.

Sadly, to this day, residents are still waiting to get back to their

home properties — 7½ months later. They feel abandoned by this NDP

government. As Lytton evacuee Peter Brown says: “To me, there seems a

complete lack of compassion from our government. It’s been too long to

not have a home.”

My question to the Premier is this. Can the Premier tell the

people of Lytton why, after 7½ months, they have still not been able to

go back to their homes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

Obviously, it is a very challenging time for residents of Lytton.

But what I can tell the member is that government is committed to the

rebuilding of Lytton, working with the community, so that people can get

back into their homes and that they can rebuild.

We’ve been working closely with the city council by providing

support in terms of their ability to do their administration. We

provided those who had to evacuate the $2,000 initial payment, over and

above the supports that they get, recognizing that this is a challenging

time.

We have ensured, with the Red Cross providing funds, that those

who have been evacuated can be and are able to have the supports that

they need for their community. There have been commitments made in terms

of the rebuilding of the civic infrastructure, whether it is the RCMP

station, the restoration of Canada Post services and the provision of

medical services through the facilities that are on the First Nations

community.

We are working very closely and we are absolutely committed to

ensuring the rebuild of Lytton. It is a challenging location. There’s no

doubt about that. But we will be there with them to ensure that the

community is rebuilt, and that people can get back into their

homes.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, if the minister and the Premier were to take a moment and

think about the residents of Lytton — people who are living somewhere

other than where their home used to be in their hometown — and try to

imagine how it must sound to hear the same words over and over and over

again: “We’re committed to rebuilding. We understand it’s challenging.

We’re going to do everything that we can.”

It has been 7½ months, and these residents of Lytton want to go

home. There’s no path for that to happen. There’s been no timelines

given for that to happen.

When this government wanted to impose a $10 FOI fee, they did that

in an instant. Literally within minutes, they made that happen. They

managed to instantly put that in place.

[2:15 p.m.]

When it comes to addressing the desire, the right of people who

live in Lytton to get back to their properties, 7½ months later and they

still have no idea why they can’t go home.

Resident Brittania Glasgow says: “It seems that everybody is

defeated and feeling like they aren’t being heard. I think I’ve heard

six or seven of my friends tell me that they don’t think that anybody

cares about the little people in Lytton.” That’s resident Brittania

Glasgow reflecting a sentiment widespread amongst the residents of

Lytton.

People deserve action. They deserve detailed answers. They deserve

specific timelines.

Again to the Premier, are archaeological assessments being

required for every person’s property, and if so, who has to pay for it,

and what is the timeline for getting them done?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, thanks to the member for the question.

There is no doubt that this is a frustrating time if you are a

resident of Lytton. People want to get back home. Absolutely, we want

them to get back home. As I said, it is a challenging situation.

Recovery does take time. It’s an ongoing process.

One of the critical areas in terms of people being able to return

to their homes is the issue of debris removal. Now, one of the areas

that was challenging around that was the closure of Highway 1. As I have

said, with the opening of Highway 1, we expect debris removal to move at

a much faster pace. It has already been removed for municipal

streets.

Tomorrow evening the municipality of Lytton is holding a council

meeting. At that council meeting, it is my expectation that they will be

approving a contract for debris removal. That contract is going to be to

remove debris from residential property. It will be aligned with the

insurers who are dealing with the insured properties, in terms of that

removal, and that removal is anticipated to start on the eighth of

March.

C. Oakes: The challenge with the government as they make these responses is

that they’re truly forgetting about the people of Lytton. For Denise

O’Connor, who has made her life in Lytton, she is incredibly worried

about the future. I want members to think about her words: “There’s the

trauma of the day of the fire. There’s the trauma of the uncertainties….

My neighbour, who just turned 85 years old, is still living in a hotel

in Merritt. She doesn’t know where she’s going to be.” It’s 7½ months

later, and residents are still waiting.

Jessoa Lightfoot, a former mayor of Lytton, says — and I want

members to please listen to the people of Lytton: “It’s just an empty

pit down there right now. You can’t get your mail, you can’t go to the

doctor, you can’t go to the pharmacy, you can’t meet your friends and

you really worry about how long it’s going to take to get people

back.”

I have heard what the minister has said. But in Fort McMurray, the

government had a phased re-entry plan with families returning just 29

days after the entire city was evacuated. By the first anniversary,

three dozen families had already moved into new homes. But 7½ months

later for the people of Lytton, and what are they faced with? Nothing is

happening on the ground. Empty, hollow words from this

government.

If the government can’t get the job done, will they at least let

the residents in so that they can start rebuilding their

lives?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I understand the

comparison that the member wants to make with Fort McMurray, but there

are significant differences between the two communities. I would point

out to the member that while, yes, there were some initial people going

back very quickly, two years later that recovery is still ongoing.

Recovery takes a long time.

There has been a lot of work done to ensure that people can return

and that when they return, it is safe to return. With many of those

properties, what had to be done was the assessment of the toxic

materials on site. The sifting that was done so that people could go

back and get their personal possessions — that was covered by

government. The $2,000 payment ensures that they don’t have to worry

about accommodation and that supports are there in place, continue to be

there.

I see the member shaking her head, but the reality is this: the

Red Cross is providing those supports and…. The Red Cross money comes

from the province, the federal government and donations, okay? They are

delivering those supports, which is the right thing to do. They will

continue to do that as long as those people need that

support.

At the same time, we’re ensuring that, working with the community,

with the council, they have the capacity and the ability to rebuild that

community. That’s why the $8 million was provided to them — more than

$2.1 million to run the operations, but the rest — the balance, the $6

million — to ensure that wastewater systems can be up and running, that

they can deal with a number of the archaeological issues. That’s support

by this government, and we will continue to be there.

As I said a moment ago, with the council meeting tomorrow night,

the approval of a contract to remove debris, aligned with the insurance

companies on those properties, for example, that have insurance — and

we’re working on those that don’t have — that debris removal will take

place starting on the eighth of March. That is going to allow people

then to be able to look forward to going back and starting that

rebuilding process. We will be with them, as I’ve said, every step of

the way. That is very much concrete action.

M. de Jong: Ken Matsumoto is a fellow in his 60s. He’s a licensed mechanic. In

the spring of 2021, he bought a place on Main Street in Lytton. He was

living there. He was operating his vehicle repair business, and then

fire swept through the town, as we all know, and wiped Lytton from the

map.

In the aftermath, Ken was given access to a hotel in Langley. Just

before Christmas, he was told he was going to have to leave. To the

minister’s credit, and I do want to give credit where credit is due, the

minister intervened, and he was able to stay in that hotel. He is

grateful for that, and I am grateful as well.

He’s coming up to another deadline. He was told that tomorrow he

has to leave the hotel. Ken doesn’t want to live in a hotel. He doesn’t

want to go to a shelter. He wants to go home. He’ll take a wheelbarrow

and a shovel, and he’ll clear a spot. He’ll move a trailer on the land

that he bought with every dollar he had — paid cash for it.

In the spring of 2021, he took all the money he had and he bought

that property. It’s his property. He’s not homeless. He has a home, but

the government won’t let him go back to his home. We have seen this in

B.C., tragically, in the past where fires occur, but I don’t think we’ve

ever seen it take this long for people to be allowed to go back to their

home and begin rebuilding.

The minister says it’s challenging. Well, it’s particularly

challenging for people like Ken. They want to know. They deserve to

know.

When can they go home with their shovel, with their wheelbarrow

and their trailer and begin living at their home again?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. We all want to see

residents of Lytton be able to go home — absolutely. There’s nobody in

this House that doesn’t want to see that happen.

[2:25 p.m.]

That’s why I think it’s critically important, in terms of that

council meeting tomorrow night and the approval of that contract. The

debris removal starts on the eighth of March. That is going to be the

most crucial step, in terms of a resident with a home wanting to go

back, to be able to start that rebuilding process. At the same time, we

ensure that the community of Lytton — a community which was completely

wiped out, so no functioning civic offices — has the ability to actually

function as a town.

That’s why we’ve provided the supports that they have. That’s why

we’ve tabled that legislation that will ratify the bylaws for the

community of Lytton. All of those things are key parts and key points in

terms of that rebuilding process. We want to see it as quickly as

possible, and we’re going to work as hard as we can to ensure that it

takes place.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Public Service Benefit Plan

Act annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW THE FREEDOM

OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to appoint the Special Committee to

Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The

full text of the motion has been provided to the two other House

Leaders.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

165) pursuant to

section 80 of that Act.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing

Committee and in addition be empowered to:

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

refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

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

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

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

and

e. retain such personnel as required to assist the Special

Committee.

That any information or evidence previously under consideration by

the Special Committee appointed by order of the House on June 16, 2021

be referred to the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by June 15, 2022; and

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

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

of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the

case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members:

Rick Glumac (Convener) , Susie Chant, Adam Olsen, Janet

Routledge, John Rustad, Tom Shypitka , and Henry

Yao .]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: All right, Members, we have to continue. Please, for those who don’t have

business in the House, maybe quietly leave.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, can we have some quiet, please? Thank you.

Minister, continue.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The amendments contained in this bill to the Protected Areas of

British Columbia Act continue with our government’s commitment to

improve and expand B.C.’s parks and protected areas system.

The amendments enhance the protection of B.C.’s spectacular

beauty. They protect important conservation values, and they will

provide more opportunities for British Columbians to get out in the

parks system and to retain the vitally important connection to nature

that, as we’ve all noticed over the last two years, has been so integral

to our physical and mental well-being. People’s desire to interact with

nature has never been greater, and we know that parks provide a critical

opportunity to connect with nature and strengthen our well-being in

every way.

These amendments are also another step forward on the path to

reconciliation with Indigenous peoples throughout B.C. and the

implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples. My ministry has consulted thoroughly with First

Nations on all of the amendments in this bill with the potential to

affect Indigenous interests. Following the addition of these lands to

the parks, the ministry will continue to work closely with Indigenous

peoples to find meaningful ways to recognize their culture and their

connection to these protected lands.

The amendments are part of our regular practice of adding land to

the protected areas system, modifying protected area boundaries to

correct errors and safety concerns, improving the descriptions of

protected area boundaries and correcting administrative errors. With

over 14 million hectares contained in the B.C. Parks system, regular

legislative updates are absolutely critical to the successful management

and protection of our system as well as the additions and improvements

that we make.

The majority of the additions in this package come from strategic

private land acquisitions. Our ministry’s acquisition of this land

ensures that the ecological and recreational values that make these

parks so special are preserved for our children and our grandchildren.

Our government understands the expectations and increased interest in

the use of our parks, and we’re working to accommodate those by the

acquisition of more land and increased investments in park

infrastructure across our province.

From 2021 to 2024, our government is investing $21½ million to

expand and enhance opportunities for outdoor recreation, including new

campsites, trails and upgrades to facilities. The investment is part of

a total $83 million budget increase to B.C. Parks’ operating and capital

budgets: $36 million overall for operating and $47 million for capital.

Combined, these will strengthen the management of our parks system and

provide a more enjoyable visitor experience for everyone.

I’ll now move on to provide some specific detail on the amendments

contained in the bill. Firstly, and of great interest to British

Columbians, this bill adds land to ten class A parks as

follows.

Naikoon Park, on the northeast tip of Haida Gwaii, will have an

addition of 123 hectares of land that the ministry purchased in 2020.

The addition protects a mixture of wetlands and sand dunes.

Hole-in-the-Wall Park, near Chetwynd, will have an addition of 14

hectares of Crown land. This will add the culturally significant spring

and cave feature, known as the hole in the wall, to the park. This

feature was erroneously excluded from the park when the park was

established.

Blue River Black Spruce Park, on Highway 5 between Clearwater and

Valemount, will have an addition of 59 hectare, which our ministry

purchased in 2020. This acquisition contributes to the protection of the

ecological integrity of the riverbank and upland habitats of the park on

the North Thompson River.

Edge Hills Park, north of Lillooet, will have an addition of 50

hectares of land, which the ministry received as a donation in 2020.

This parcel, adjacent to the west side of the park, will enhance

wildlife connectivity and provide additional protection for the Fraser

River bluffs.

Valhalla Park, in the West Kootenays, will have an addition of 32

hectares of land, which the ministry purchased in 2020. The addition of

this particular inholding will improve connectivity across this very

large park and prevent future incompatible activities from occurring in

the parcel.

[2:35 p.m.]

Okanagan Mountain Park, on the east side of Okanagan Lake, will

have 21 hectares of land added — which we received, again, from a

donation in 2020. I want to recognize the many British Columbians that

have left, as a bequest to all British Columbians, property of

significant ecological value, sometimes of cultural value and often of

recreational value — many times helping us to fill in some of the blanks

in park areas that we’d wished, from inception, to include but were not

able to at the time.

In addition to the donated parcel, a trail and access point on two

hectares of Crown land known as the Golden Mile Trail is being added to

the park. These park additions also enhance wildlife connectivity and

species protection and will provide an important recreational linkage to

the existing park.

Gladstone Park will have an addition of six hectares of land,

which our ministry purchased in 2019. The purchase completes the

province’s ownership of the northern lake frontage of Christina Lake.

The acquisition includes the mouth of Sandner Creek, an important

kokanee spawning area. The park addition also contains old-growth forest

and a pristine beach area, and 14 hectares of Crown foreshore will also

be added to this park.

The Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park will have an addition of

18 hectares of land, which we purchased in 2020. This addition builds on

previous acquisitions that will increase important connectivity for

wildlife in the park. The largely undeveloped addition includes habitat

for mule deer and grizzly bear and 450 metres of lakeshore along

Kootenay Lake. Five hectares of Crown foreshore will also be added to

the park. Christina Lake Park, at the popular south end of the lake,

will have three hectares of Crown foreshore added.

Kootenay Lake Park, Davis Creek site, north of Kaslo, will have

five hectares of Kootenay Lake foreshore added. Like the foreshore

additions to Christina Lake, Purcell and Gladstone, this foreshore

addition increases the protection of adjacent lake values and improves

the management of lakefront recreation.

A second important part of the bill is in amendments that modify

the boundaries of two parks and two ecologi­cal

reserves.

Firstly, four hectares of land will be removed from Big White

Mountain Ecological Reserve. This land was mistakenly included in the

ecological reserve when it was established in 1972 and overlaps with

what has always been understood to be a controlled recreation area for

Big White Ski Resort and that has been in place since 1963.

And 0.2 hectares will be removed from Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological

Reserve to remove important water supply infrastructure that was also

erroneously included in the ecological reserve at the time of its

establishment.

An additional two hectares will be deleted from West Arm Park to

remove the area that’s required by the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure for a right-of-way for a publicly travelled portion of

Svoboda Road.

Several other boundary modifications will be made to Omineca Park

to correct administrative errors: 297 hectares will be added to the park

from land that is currently established as a protected area under the

Environment and Land Use Act, and 172 hectares of Germansen Lake

mainline road will be deleted from the park, to be managed instead by

the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development.

Finally, these amendments make several administrative corrections

and improvements to our legal descriptions. This is an ongoing process

in B.C. Parks to make these boundaries more accurate and more easily

understood and followed. This includes moving from a metes and bounds

and lot and parcel method of description to mapped boundaries that are

called official plans. They’re simply more accurate, more understandable

and more practical for field surveying than the written metes and bounds

descriptions.

British Columbians take great pride in our parks and protected

areas system. It is the largest, on a percentage basis, in Canada, in

terms of protecting land and the species and ecosystems that depend on

it. Over 14 percent of our province is contained within our provincial

protected areas system.

[2:40 p.m.]

These amendments will continue our commitment to improving the

system. We’re not only looking for opportunities to add ecologically and

culturally significant lands but also to improve recreational

opportunities and experience within our diverse system. And of course,

we’re always looking to protect unique and irreplaceable ecosystems and

biodiversity that are contained within them. Expanding B.C. parks is an

important investment in a healthy future.

With that, I look forward to the comments from other

members.

R. Merrifield: I’m very glad to take my place in this second reading today. I’m

going to start by echoing the minister’s words, because never before

have our parks been as important as they are than after the last two

years that British Columbians have been through. Our outdoor spaces, our

parks, our nature have been almost a healing, as it were, for some of

the mental health aspects of the pandemic and how hard it has hit all of

us.

These Protected Areas of B.C. Act amendments are a regular

occurrence in the Legislature, and rightfully so. Our parks are some of

our most important assets. They are boundaries and jurisdictions that

help dictate how we can better protect our wildlife and

ecosystems.

They are one of the greatest attractions that bring in hundreds of

thousands of tourists to our province every single year who come to

explore and to enjoy our lands and wildlife while supporting local

tourism businesses and operators.

They are a reflection of our national and international identity

as a province. This is, after all, beautiful British Columbia. As has

become common practice, amendments to the Protected Areas of British

Columbia Act are regularly undertaken by governments of the day to add

land to parks and conservancies and modify or correct the boundaries and

improve boundary descriptions. It’s also important to recognize the

ongoing work of the Ministry of Environment staff to better protect our

protection, as has been outlined to this House through this

legislation.

These land purchases, as well as the boundary and administrative

our provincial parks and to better protect our ecosystems and better

serve British Columbians wishing to enjoy them. While we can celebrate

the achievements outlined in this legislation, there are several

reminders that our work to expand and improve our parks and protected

areas is far from over.

Many of the boundary amendments and acquisitions of additional

land were made through the purchase of private property, as well as

property donations from ecological and environmental advocates, as well

as from generous British Columbians who want to see this land protected

and maintained for years to come. Of course, the province is only able

to acquire this land when it becomes readily available. Government has a

responsibility to capitalize on future opportunities in the coming years

as they become readily available so we can continue to make prospective

changes to our park boundaries while operating within our province’s

budgetary means.

Our parks and ecological reserve boundary changes must also be

made in partnership with our Indigenous communities, and always in the

spirit of forwarding reconciliation by acknowledging their generational

knowledge of the land around us.

In speaking with the staff of the Ministry of Environment, I was

also reminded that many of the boundary changes outlined in this

legislation are the result of an emergence of new discoveries and

revelations of the parklands and ecosystems. For example, in one case,

boundary changes are taking place to protect a spring that was not

included in the initial land purchase, despite it being the intent of

the purchase in the first place.

We have to remember that many of the land surveys which dictated

our current park boundaries took place many years ago — in some cases,

as much as a century ago. A recent boundary change has been made in

light of a discovery that an entire water system has changed course

since the last survey was conducted. All of these cases are a reminder

of how important these administrative changes are as we make our parks

and boundaries reflect the current and ever-changing world around

us.

There is more work to be done, but it is no reason to not support

and commend the changes that have been made and that are now outlined in

this legislation. I look forward to asking more probing questions on

some of the details of the bill, especially surrounding Indigenous

consultation and current rationale on specifics.

[2:45 p.m.]

I would like to conclude by offering my thanks to the staff of the

Ministry of Environment for their continued work and advocacy to expand

our parks, protect our environments and allow British Columbians to

better enjoy the lands that we are all so blessed to explore and live in

every day.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 3, the Protected

Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Recognizing that this is sort of an annual adjustment that happens

within B.C. Parks system where staff kind of collect a variety of

different amendments that can be made to the act in order to reflect, I

think, where we’re at now with protected areas of British Columbia and

making sure that our park system remains vital and vibrant and available

to humans to enjoy but, more than that, to ensure that humans are not

disrupting every square centimetre of this province. It is a protection,

I think, for us to ensure that there are places left for flora and fauna

that are non-human.

With that, I think that it’s important that not only speaking to

the member’s comments before — that these are incredible and important

places for humans to get out and experience nature and enjoy some time,

do some forest bathing, get in and feel the positive impacts that nature

can have on our mental and physical well-being — but that also the

biodiversity that is represented in parks must be protected for our

ecological well-being, as protections against severe weather impacts

like we have seen in this province over the last year and longer with

respect to climate change.

The legislation before us, like the previous iterations of this

legislation, is definitely something that I and my colleague in the B.C.

Green caucus definitely support. I think that it’s important for us to

be taking the lands that are donated to the province of British Columbia

and adding them to parks and continuing to increase the vibrancy of our

parks and ecosystems across the province.

I think that it’s important also to note that part of the work

that has been done in past iterations of this bill is a naming exercise

that has reflected the traditional Indigenous place names that are

associated with the areas within various provincial parks. It’s

unfortunate that this year we don’t see a real engagement in that, and

that could be a lack of Indigenous nations stepping forward.

However, I do have a number of parks in my riding, and I think

that what I would like to see going forward…. I made it known to the

ministry that there are processes that, when given the opportunity, I’d

be very happy to help with in order to continue to encourage the

renaming of those parks or the addition. As we’ve talked about in the

past, this shouldn’t be seen as removing anything from the parks but

adding context and adding understanding to these incredible

places.

One of the things that British Columbians often do when they visit

a park is they get to know the place a little bit better. They get to

know the history of the place a little bit better.

We have seen, as an example,

ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱/John Dean Provincial

Park, an additive process where this government recognized the long

history that the W̱SÁNEĆ people had

with that sacred mountain that we know as

ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱. We were able to both

honour that long history of that place and the sacredness of it for the

Indigenous people in the area and, as well, recognize John Dean for

donating that treasure at the heart of the Saanich Peninsula and making

the contribution. Indeed it remains, well, one of the last places on the

Saanich Peninsula that has any substantive forest remaining on it. It is

there, because we have it added to a park.

[2:50 p.m.]

We get the opportunity of learning about the history, learning

about the flood story and that place of refuge for the

W̱SÁNEĆ people. Indeed, uniquely,

it has now become a place of refuge for all people living in

W̱SÁNEĆ on the Saanich Peninsula.

As a park, it is also a place of refuge to…. You can almost get away

from the buzzing of the airplanes if you go up there. Almost. It’s very

close to an airport, so it’s difficult to do that, but it is something

that I think needs to be celebrated.

I look forward to working with the minister and staff within the

ministry. There are a number of parks in Saanich North and the Islands

that I’d be happy to engage in the process right now for next year, if

the minister is going to be bringing a similar bill forward in future

sessions. I can identify at least two parks right now that would benefit

from adding to the story that we tell about the parks in our

ridings.

I’m certain that there are members in this Legislature that, if

given the opportunity to engage, could use this opportunity, in fact, to

engage Indigenous Nations in their ridings and use it as an opportunity

to build relationships and be that advocate, but also be that meaningful

connection between the communities that we represent and the minister

and the ministry staff.

I think one of the other things that I’d like to highlight here —

and this is something that I’ve brought to the attention of the ministry

in the past, and it seems like a good opportunity now to just highlight

— is that while we can go through the necessary process of adding

additional lands to parks, it’s really important that the next step in

the spring session, the budget step, is that we see a marked increase in

the investment that British Columbians are making into our parks

system.

We can celebrate daily or monthly or annually the fact that we

have a large number of hectares of lands protected under this act.

However, if we’re not investing the appropriate level of funding into

the park system, then we start to see the erosion of the value of those

lands. I start to think about some of the parklands in our territory,

and this isn’t just provincial. I will say that, because I think that

the provincial government has been doing a better job, but without the

adequate amount of resources, there’s not the attention that needs to be

made — to fuel loads, as an example — within our parklands.

There’s one non-provincial park in particular that I’m thinking

about in my riding that could use a much larger amount of funding in

order to deal with the really huge increase of combustible material

that’s on the ground and that poses a threat to the people living in

those neighbourhoods.

My hope is that I can be a useful advocate on behalf of the

minister in advocating for his government to increase the budget to the

park system so that we can ensure that the trails are not only being

built so people can have access to it but that the trails that are built

are not unnecessarily damaging sensitive ecosystems — which, if they’re

not constructed quite properly, can have, actually, a deleterious effect

on the ecosystems of those parks — and that the annual maintenance

budget reflects what’s needed in terms of our values here in this House,

on behalf of the parklands that we have set aside from our extractive

industries and our extractive activities.

With that, I’m happy to support this bill. I will be happy to

support a larger budget. I think, through the minister to his colleague,

the Minister of Finance: I’ll even be happier to support a larger budget

for parklands and the proper maintenance and upkeep and construction of

trails within our parks.

I look forward to engaging the minister and the ministry on a few

of the parks in my riding that could benefit from adding their historic

and the proper place names to those places so that we are remembering

and acknowl­edging and celebrating the entire history of this

province in a good way.

With that, I take my seat.

Thank you for this opportunity.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: I wanted, to just start my comments, to join my colleague the

member for Kelowna-Mission on behalf of the official opposition to

bridge off of the member’s comments from Saanich North and the Islands —

and to remind the minister that in the second reading debate on a very

similar bill last fall, the minister very much was encouraging the

approach that the member for Saanich North and the Islands just invited,

which is cooperation with MLAs in this Legislative Assembly to find the

right level of partnerships, collaboration with Indigenous peoples in

the traditional territories in which we have our

constituencies.

The minister said that the bill, as it was then framed in a very

similar way to these amendments, would allow the government “to continue

moving forward with the ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous

peoples by renaming,” in that case, “two parks to include their place

names. That’s an important step in implementing the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples….”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The minister went on to say: “From our ministry and the B.C. Parks

staff, we have a continuing process of consultation with Indigenous

peoples, the rights and title holders, and many productive discussions

with respect to improving cultural

interpretation in the parks and

engaging the nations as part of that — signage and, ultimately,

management.”

I’m going to come back to the word, in terms of management, in a

moment, but certainly, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands

talked about, there’s lots of opportunity — lots of opportunity that

we’ve expected when this House passed, unanimously, the adoption of the

United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We did

that on November 28, 2019 — 26 months ago.

When we passed that legislation in this House, unanimously, with a

very important historic, significant ceremony, with many leaders of

Indigenous peoples here in this province, we passed it in a way that

said, in

section 3: “In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous

peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures

necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the

Declaration.”

I know that many colleagues of mine here, as we address pieces of

legislation that the government brings forward, in the last 26 months,

have asked the questions: what has changed? Since we passed DRIPA, as

it’s known in this House, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act, we’ve asked: what has changed?

I can tell you that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the

member for Skeena took great pains to go through, in their comments on

second reading and in committee, to ensure, of course, that the

consultation — elements of collaboration and discussion with Indigenous

peoples in terms of their traditional territories and their traditional

activities, to the extent that there are overlapping claims by First

Nations and Indigenous peoples on the parkland that’s referred to in

this bill — is not unduly impaired.

Certainly, I’m sure, we will hear from the minister, as he

indicated in his second reading speech that there has been a level of

consultation, as he did confirm when we looked at the similar regime

last time, in the fall of 2021.

I would just like to take this opportunity as the new critic for

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to continue the dialogue. The

dialogue is about this, as the member for Abbotsford West and myself

had, 27 months ago, five days of committee stage to talk about

DRIPA.

[3:00 p.m.]

The obligation of this government is: “

(1) The government must

prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the

Declaration.

(2) The action plan must be prepared and implemented in

consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British

Columbia.

(3) The action plan must contain the date on or before which

the government must initiate a review of the action plan.”

These are subsections 4(1), (2), (3) of DRIPA — again, the bill

that we passed in this House 26 months ago. What do we have now? We have

a draft action plan — a draft action plan that has been put out by the

minister respon­sible in June of 2021. This is on the basis when

the government had said — the minister’s predecessor here in this House

— that it would be a matter of months for the action plan to be put in

place. It’s been 26 months.

They put out a draft action plan in June of 2021 and gave

Indigenous peoples and First Nations until July 31 of 2021 to comment,

the so-called consultation. I understand the minister responsible has

said that the action plan is coming. We’re waiting. Debates and

discussions on bills like this give us the opportunity as MLAs in this

House to get the clarity, the transparency, that we all need to have

about the implementation of DRIPA. That clarity we get on an annual

report. Yes, there have been two annual reports, as required. There will

be a third one. Two annual reports that were based on no action

plan.

We are left with using the House’s time to have discussions in the

nature of every bill that comes in front of this House. So I expect that

at committee stage, the minister responsible — and this is the reason

why I’m raising this on second reading right now — will be able to

confirm that, in accordance with DRIPA, this bill is consistent with the

declaration. I say that because when I look at the debate that was had

on the previous bill, as I mentioned, at the persistence of the member

for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for Skeena, I note that the

minister responsible for this bill said: “We engage….”

Let me just say this for context. As part of the consultation with

Indigenous peoples, “we serve notice to nations that have asserted an

interest in the territory, and we include in that a description of what

we’re proposing as well as maps. When we get responses, we answer

questions.”

The

section that I was most interested in is this: “We engage in

discussion with them, and part of our legal analysis of whether we meet

the tests that are required is an analysis of whether we meet the tests

required under our new piece of legislation, the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.”

I would like to know from the minister, when we get to committee

stage and if he hasn’t answered today in his response to our second

reading debate: what has the government determined to be the new test

required under DRIPA? He made reference to them. He says they’re new

tests. I’m not sure, and I’ll look back at the Hansard over

five days of committee stage. I’m not sure I heard the words “new

tests.” That wasn’t the case by this government 26 months ago. So now

there are new tests.

I will say that when I look at the report…. The annual report that

was issued by this government, the 2020-2021 report, indicated, on page

17, a new approach. It now is reporting on specific articles of the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In this case, it’s

Article 29.1, which says: “Indigenous peoples

have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and

the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources.

States shall establish and implement assistance programs for Indigenous

peoples for such conservation and protection, without

discrimination.”

[3:05 p.m.]

It seems to me that that seems to be a relevant

article of DRIPA,

as it applies to the Protective Areas Act that we’re looking at here, in

this bill.

This appears to be a shift. When you look at the draft action

plan, the 70-plus actions that the government has put out for

consultation…. I know I can stand corrected here, in further discussion,

but I don’t see a specific reference to

Article 29.1. I see general

reference in terms of how there needs to be, under 2.7 on page 8:

“Co-develop and enhance strategic-level policies, programs and

initia­tives reflecting collaboration and cooperation on

stewardship of the environment, lands and resources.” That is the level

in which the action plan speaks to.

I am just wondering now, as we look at…. It’s one thing to talk

about: have First Nations been properly, duly consulted with under the

obligations of the duty to consult? I just mentioned the

test.

We all understand, under

section 35 jurisprudence, that this

government has that obligation. We understood that UNDRIP was going to

be interpreted through the lens of

section 35 jurisprudence. That’s what

we spent five days in this House going through. I’m just mindful — and I

look at the transcript; the previous dates on the similar bill — that

there are new tests. I’m also looking at this draft report that goes

specifically to the article.

That brings me back full circle, then. If we are looking now at

this action plan and reporting on a draft…. First of all, it’s in draft.

It hasn’t been finalized after 26 months, which is my first point. The

second point is that it’s now referring to, in the annual reporting….

This is the only level of transparency that we have for this

House.

My concern is that it’s been 26 months with no real progress by

this government. We know what’s been going on in this province over the

last 24 months, 26 months. I understand that. But the fact of the matter

is that we know, in this area of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples,

in this province, in these lands, that we need to make meaningful

progress. It is not just status quo. It’s not just checking the box. So

when I hear the member for Saanich North and the Islands talk about

missed opportunities, sure, there are lots missed opportunities. It’s

very piecemeal.

I look at the reporting back on the progress that’s made. When I

look at a bill that’s being presented to this House, it’s not just about

asking questions about what’s included. It’s about what is not included.

Then I look at the reporting by the government against this particular

article of UNDRIP, which there can be discussion with.

I’m sure I’ll have my opportunity in estimates to have my

discussion with the minister about the approach of this government, but

if they’re going to go through and report on every single

article of

UNDRIP that the government is making progress on and then report on, in

detailed fashion, the specific, “Well, here’s an example of what we’re

doing,” where is everything else?

Is that really what we’re going to be doing in this House? I’m

concerned about the use of resources that we have. We have to use them

in a smart way. Again, I look forward to having the opportunity, as we

go into the committee stage, to certainly reconfirm what has occurred,

with our critic here, the member for Kelowna-Mission, in terms of the

specific parks that are under consideration here.

I’ll just make one more comment here, in terms of the throne

speech. The throne speech talks about, in two places, of course, the

opportunity…. And this brings me back to this. The minister, of course,

in the debate on this similar bill last fall, talked about management.

That was the word he used. The throne speech talks about the same thing:

“Most critically, B.C.’s commitment to reconciliation must come to life

through the consultation, collaboration and co-management of land and

resources envisioned in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Well, again, I ask the minister, at the committee stage: what is

the government doing to make progress on co-management? What is the

intention of that? What does that mean in the context of protected areas

of this province?

What does it mean when this government brings forward a bill that

presents protected areas of British Columbia and does it without any

transparency other than relying on government about their consultation

process with First Nations, Indigenous peoples? If they’re truly talking

about comanagement, where is the evidence of that? What’s the level of

cooperation, collaboration, that this government is doing? I think we

need that level of transparency and clarity. We also need to know from

this government how they are making progress.

With those comments, I’ll take my place here and look forward to

committee stage on this bill.

K. Greene: I am pleased to speak today to Bill 3, Protected Areas of British

Columbia Amendment Act.

We know that British Columbians care very deeply about our

provincial parks, which are important for our physical and mental

well-being. I often say that getting outside is good for your mind, body

and soul, and it is. Our parks bring people, families and communities

together, provide outdoor recreation and new cultural experiences, and

protect species and ecosystems found nowhere else in this

world.

Climate change is affecting our land and water ecosystems and

putting even more strain on our natural environment. Biodiversity and

ecological values are so important, which means that our parks and

protected areas are even more special. Our parks are a treasure.

Expanding our parks system ensures more lands are protected and cared

for in perpetuity for all British Columbians. The proposed additions to

ten provincial parks strengthen the protection of our natural legacy and

allow us to expand and enhance the visitor experience.

By purchasing strategic private land in wilderness parks such as

Valhalla Park, we’re able to ensure that incompatible activities do not

take away from the wilderness recreation experience that these parks

offer British Columbians.

We are also protecting a portion of a popular recreational trail

that currently sits adjacent to Okanagan Mountain Park. This former old

highway road corridor now serves as the start of the Wildhorse Canyon

Trail, the first

section of which is known as the Golden Mile Trail.

Adding the Golden Mile Trail allows us to manage and protect this valued

recreational feature.

Expanding Hole-in-the-Wall Park protects a unique spring and cave

feature that is culturally significant to First Nations in the area.

Collaboration with First Nations is important to a healthy and strong

parks and protected areas system.

These amendments also add adjacent lake foreshore to Gladstone

Park, Christina Lake Park, Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park and

Kootenay Lake Park. The foreshore additions will enable improved

protection of adjacent lake values consistent with the upland park

areas. We know that people want us to effectively manage these popular

beach sites for people to enjoy and to protect the values for

generations to come. Including foreshore in these parks provides B.C.

Parks the authority to manage these activi­ties, such as boating

and beach camping in these areas.

Our parks can sometimes suffer from being too popular. It’s

important when you’re heading outdoors to remember why you’re there: for

the beauty of our province’s natural areas. As I learned in Girl Guides,

take only photographs and leave only footprints.

The B.C. Parks website has great resources for responsible

camping. The website includes smash hits like “Parks are not

self-cleaning” and “Wild animals are supposed to eat wild things.”

Please check it out. Responsible camping means that we can all enjoy a

litter-free wilderness and that wild animals stay safe. Leave your

campsite or trail in the condition you found it or better. When we all

take responsibility for our visits into nature, we will all have a

better experience in our pristine forests, beaches and

mountains.

Balancing conservation and recreation is important for B.C. Parks.

Protecting additional areas, such as the ones included in this bill,

means that we’re able to protect important ecological values and also to

ensure that any recreation activities are respectful of our beautiful

province. So many British Columbians love getting outside and enjoying

nature. Camping, hiking, bird-watching, fishing, meditating, canoeing,

photography, stand-up paddleboarding — the opportunities are limitless,

whether you’re nine or 99. B.C. parks are for everyone. You belong in

nature.

[3:15 p.m.]

We know that for people with diverse backgrounds, trip planning

and booking is a crucial step for a successful and rewarding trip to

B.C. parks. Expanding our parks and protected areas, as we have in this

bill, is complemented by work we’re undertaking to improve the B.C.

Parks website and campsite booking program. We’ve heard from park users

that the current system wasn’t working for them, and we’re taking

action. We have a sample website up right now, and if you’d like to

participate in giving us feedback on the new platform, please head to

beta.bcparks.ca.

Like the streams, creeks and rivers that flow through B.C. parks,

we aren’t standing still. We’re adding to our parks through this bill,

and with last year’s historic three-year $83 million budget increase,

we’re able to improve recreational opportunities and parks through

capital and operating budgets. That is truly exciting.

British Columbians have been visiting our parks in record numbers,

and those visits have increased even more since the start of the

pandemic. Rather than being a temporary phenomenon, those visitors will

come back for the very same reasons that we have attracted visitors from

around the world. Our province is spectacularly beautiful.

The park areas in today’s bill are no exception. If you’re looking

for some eye candy, search #beautifulbc on Instagram. Just looking at

images of soaring trees, powdery snow-covered trails and fog clinging to

silvery pines will give you that sense of peace and calm. But imagine

being there in person. The record-breaking 3.1 million campers who

stayed in B.C. parks last year experienced firsthand the physical and

mental benefits of B.C. parks.

There were also record-breaking numbers of day visitors

experiencing those positive benefits from recreation outdoors. That’s

why we’ve added more than 1,700 campsites to provincial parks and

recreation sites over the last four years and recently acquired two more

properties that are intended to be added to Tribune Bay Provincial Park

on Hornby Island. These properties will complete the beachfront of

Tribune Bay and add an existing private campground. After consultation

with First Nations and input from stakeholders, we can start potential

campground improvements.

Did you know that more than 14 percent of our province is

contained within our provincial protected areas system? With this bill,

our park and protected areas in B.C. will increase by 174 hectares and

be included in the more than 14 million hectares of parks and protected

areas in this province. We continue to look for opportunities to add

ecologically and culturally significant lands and also improve

recreational opportunities and experiences within our diverse park

system.

Visiting B.C. parks was one of my most favourite things to do when

I was a child. I especially loved going camping. Exploring for

interesting bugs, discovering salamanders and poking rocks with sticks

could take all afternoon. My kids were lucky enough and are lucky enough

to grow up in B.C., like I did. The small joys of testing the size of

the sploosh for different-sized rocks in the water is something that can

only be learned at your favourite creek, pond, river or

beach.

Kids in future generations are going to have less opportunity to

experience our beautiful province because of climate change. Parks are

not immune to the same events that have reshaped large swaths of land,

destroying forests, roads and livelihoods and killing many, many people.

Forest fires, floods and heat domes are all here to stay, and they will

get worse as greenhouse gas emissions rise.

After last year’s heat dome, I visited several parks. What I saw

at Porteau Cove Provincial Park still haunts me. The smooth stones of

the beach were essentially gone. They were covered with a thick layer of

mussel shells and other dead marine creatures. The beach was crunchy —

crunchy. It’s estimated that a billion aquatic creatures died during the

heat dome, cooked in an ocean that was heated by climate

change.

Fighting climate change is not just a simple moral imperative to

leave a better planet for our children and the generations after. Our

economy, our food systems, our supply chains all depend on a hospitable

planet. What we’ve seen to date — the destruction, the devastation, the

loss of livelihood and lives — is with only 1 Celsius of warming.

Scientists estimate that we’re on track for 3 Celsius or more of

warming, which is unimaginable.

[3:20 p.m.]

Taking action on climate change is urgent and encompassing.

Meeting emission reductions outlined in CleanBC will ensure that we do

our part to stop heating our planet to the point of catastrophe.

Protecting parks and biodiversity are important commitments that will be

reaffirmed with the passing of this bill. These special areas are

important for British Columbians as beautiful examples of the best that

nature has to offer and as protection for nature that is facing

increasing threat from climate change.

I am delighted to be able to work with the amazing and dedicated

people who are making B.C. parks an even better place to visit, while

also protecting sensitive ecosystems and respecting Indigenous culture

and knowledge. It is my pleasure to speak in favour of this bill, and I

look forward to future additions to B.C.’s incredible park

system.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, would the minister like to close

debate, please.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to thank the members of this House who have spoken to

Bill 3 for their comments and their observations. It is always important

to talk about B.C. parks, about biodiversity and about

reconciliation.

I want to address some of the remarks briefly. I want to thank the

member for Kelowna-Mission, as well as to welcome her to her new role as

opposition critic for Environment and Climate Change Strategy. The

member identified, I think, some very good points that I’d be happy to

explore further with her in committee stage. In particular, the member

noted that she hoped that our government would continue to proactively

look for opportunities to purchase lands that are worthy of protection,

that have significant ecological or recreational interest or that will

complete parks.

I want to assure all members of the House and the public that we

have a budget to do that. We have a priori­tized list of

particular areas that we’re always looking for the opportunity to

purchase for addition to our parks and protected area system if a fair

price can be arrived at. Then, of course, we also have backups if

something higher in the priority list is not available. We’d be,

certainly, very happy to explore that during third reading.

To the member for Saanich North and the Islands: your focus on the

importance of ecological values in the park system, the protection of

biodiversity and ecological systems, is very important. One of the first

announcements I had an opportunity to do as minister was in an area

formerly known as Eagle Heights, in the traditional terri­tory of

the Cowichan Tribes and also in the constituency of the Third Party

Leader.

The name of that new park, that area that was purchased by our

government…. The Indigenous name is Hwsa­lu’utsum. It was noted,

when we made the announcement, that this was not an area for people to

go camping. This was not an area where people would go for uncontrolled

hikes. This is an area of some significant old-growth Douglas fir, some

sensitive grasslands, some rare species. It is an area that we added to

the park system to protect and conserve its ecological

integrity.

I also note the member’s raising of the issue of opportunities to

advance and to support the recognition, for all of us, of significant

Indigenous culture, history, knowledge and spirituality, as well as

naming. I had a very profoundly moving experience that was initiated by

children of the W̱SÁNEĆ people in the

member’s constituency, where they asked, as the member pointed out, that

we rename John Dean Park to recognize the significance of that area to

their people — a significance that they’d heard about in stories but

never saw recognized in the names around them. That led to the naming of

ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱/John Dean

Park.

[3:25 p.m.]

There are many more opportunities. I don’t want to imply that one

or two actions address the issue, but these are actions in good faith

that signal the willingness to take more action in the

future.

I’d certainly welcome the member for Saanich North and the Islands

and other members who have ideas about how we can enhance and promote

our protected area system generally, but specifically with advancing

reconciliation or looking for opportunities to signal to all British

Columbians the history and the tradition and the culture and the

significance of places for the Indigenous peoples who called a

particular area home for millennia, to recognize that in naming, and

then further recognize that in collaboration and other forms of

engagement with the Indigenous peoples in the area.

Because I have spoken to representatives of a number of nations, I

know when we do that, and when we enter into that process with

open-mindedness and open hearts, it does have meaning. It is a step.

Maybe a small step, but an important step of many steps that, together,

constitute reconciliation.

I will highlight for the member, also, who urged us to continue to

expand the budget that in last year’s budget, the Canadian Parks and

Wilderness Society of B.C. noted that the over $80 million that we put

in the capital plan for three years was the most in decades and was

significant. They expected good things to come from that, as do I, and

as I believe the member does.

Of course, continuing to invest in British Columbia parks now and

well into the future will be not only a service to the environment, to

the planet, but also to British Columbians who value and who receive

significant physical and mental health benefits from reconnecting with

nature. We do that through the budget.

We also do that through the activities of the B.C. Parks

Foundation that was established by the previous government and with whom

I am happy to work. I am happy to work with them because they are coming

up with new initiatives and assisting the people of British Columbia to

add more areas to our parks and protected areas system.

We also work with NGOs that often come forward with money to

purchase and protect particularly ecologically significant areas. Of

course, the B.C. Parks licence plate program is highly successful and

provides funding for student ranger programs as well as other park

enhancements.

Finally, to the member for Vancouver-Langara, I look forward to

his questions and comments in committee stage. I will note that we

consulted, as I said earlier, broadly with nations affected by these

changes. But we consult more broadly, generally, whether it is the

setting aside of the Mount Edziza Conservancy and then the ultimate

renaming of that to Tenh Dẕetle Conservancy at the request and with the

collaboration of the Tahltan people as part of a shared prosperity

agreement, whether it’s upcoming meetings with Lheidli T’enneh, meetings

being set up with the Líl̓wat, as well as the First Peoples Cultural

Council. It is an ongoing process.

I recently had a meeting with representatives of the

Tsleil-Waututh people with respect to a park in their area, Say Nuth

Khaw Yum, in which we have had for many years a collaborative management

agreement about ways in which we can expand and enhance that

collaborative management agreement, as well as put more resources into

an area that has significant cultural and spiritual signifi­cance

to them and, of course, is an important part of the B.C. parks

system.

I look forward to the committee stage. This bill has important

amendments that will continue our commitment. But of course, it is one

more step of the journey.

I also want to join the member for Kelowna-Mission in thanking the

staff in B.C. Parks and the Ministry of the Environment for the work

they do — the very detailed day-in, day-out work that they do — that has

resulted in these changes and in a vibrant parks and recreation system

and network for British Columbia.

[3:30 p.m.]

I also want to thank the member for Richmond-Steveston, the

parliamentary secretary, for the significant work she has done to

promote B.C. parks to conduct consultations with British Columbians

about how we can enhance the recreational opportunities for British

Columbians in their parks. Thank you very much to my parliamentary

secretary for your very important work in this regard, all of which

forms part of not only this bill but also our actions in the parks

system generally.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2022, read

a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Dean: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 2.

Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes as we switch tables.

Thank you.

The House recessed at 3:31 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; R. Leonard in

the chair.

The committee met at 3:39 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. J. Osborne: I’d like to introduce the staff that I have with me today. They

are Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister for the local government

division; Kara Woodward, executive director for the local government

policy, research and legislation branch; and Patrick Glanc, a senior

policy analyst for the same branch.

I’d like to thank my critic, the member for Penticton, the critic

for Municipal Affairs. I look forward to the conversation that’s about

to come. Ready to go.

[3:40 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I’d like to say thank you to the minister for the opportunity and

also to — I’m not being facetious — her incredible staff. Having worked

with your ministry in local government, I would just like to thank them

very, very much for their abilities and the information they provided to

people like myself in local government. It makes a huge difference, so

thank you.

Minister, just to start this off, a quick question: what are the

intended effects of this legislation, for the record, please?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question around the intended effects of this

legislation.

This legislation is narrow in scope. These amendments are required

in order to provide a clear legal path for the village of Lytton to

repeal, as well as repeal and replace, any bylaws that were lost or

partially lost in the fire they experienced on June 30, 2021.

In some cases, the continued effects of the fire might make it

challenging for the council of the village of Lytton to comply with all

of the requirements set out in legislation and regulation in relation to

adopting a bylaw. So in these circumstances, the village of Lytton might

seek to have certain requirements or conditions waived or modified or

replaced. These amendments would enable them do that.

Those modifications or exemptions from existing conditions and

requirements will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

D. Ashton: May I ask the minister when MEVA was first discussed in government

for the town of Lytton?

Hon. J. Osborne: The beginning of discussion about this item, by staff internal to

government, was late fall.

D. Ashton: I would just like to ask: late fall by staff…? The fire was 7½

months ago. Let’s take off three months for late fall. A lot was

happening on the ground in Merritt, and somebody was brought in to help

out, a gentleman I have a huge amount of respect for. A CAO was in

place.

I’m just curious about…. I’m not trying to be detrimental. Please,

don’t get me wrong. I’m just curious about the timelines and time frame.

Why so long? Was it asked for? Was it something that was proposed by

government? If I could get an answer to those.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Of course we recognize that the situation in Lytton was an

absolutely unprecedented event. Not only did the village lose all of

its…. Well, not all. Pardon me. Not only did the village lose many of

its records, but it also lost backups of those records, and it takes

quite some time for the village staff to begin to go through the process

of recovering some of the bylaws from various different sources to

understand which bylaws were lost and how they could move

forward.

For example, they reached out to the regional district. They

talked to former staff as they began the process of trying to assemble

the missing portions and bylaws. Our staff continued to work with the

village directly to support them in this process, and it was finally

identified, as this was uncovered, that the only remedy was a legal

remedy, and that was amending legislation through MEVA in order to allow

them to establish a new suite of bylaws. That’s why we’re taking the

steps that we are.

D. Ashton: Of course, to MEVA…. Is the ministry and staff considering…?

Having grown up in local government, the computer is here with its file

server, the next room is the backup, and the bylaws are in the basement.

So are we looking forward into the future where recommendations will be

coming from the ministry to ensure that the great difficulty that the

town of Lytton is going through in replacing their bylaws doesn’t happen

again and that there will be backup files somewhere in this wonderful

province?

Hon. J. Osborne: The member rightly points out that it is best practice for local

governments to take good care of their bylaws. Certainly there have been

many things learned out of the experience in Lytton. Our staff intend to

work with our partners, the Local Government Management Association, to

educate local governments around the importance of having remote backups

as a records management best practice.

D. Ashton: In winding the clock back, late fall — I’m going to presuppose

that was before November, or early part of November — would there not

have been an opportunity to bring this forward a little earlier than to

wait until the session now, in February?

Hon. J. Osborne: The simple answer is no. The work that was being done internal to

government didn’t even come forward until January — to enter that

process, to come through the cabinet approval process and end up where

we are today.

D. Ashton: Again, I’m just posing the questions. Could there not have been

some anticipatory thought that this may be coming forward, and in

conjunction with the staff working with the people of Lytton, to maybe

facilitate this a bit earlier?

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, these are generalized questions. I’m just asking for a time

frame on it.

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to being able to anticipate this problem, I think

it’s probably best answered by simply saying that this absolutely was an

unprecedented event. There wasn’t a way to look back in time and see how

things had been done previously.

It took quite some time for staff to work with Municipal Affairs

staff at the village, as well, to really understand what had been lost

and what steps could be taken to re-establish their full suite of

bylaws. The staff at Lytton wanted to determine the best path forward,

so because of the time that that took, it landed us here today, where

we’re considering this bill.

D. Ashton: Jumping back to the legislation, may I ask: why is the scope of

the legislation so narrow?

Hon. J. Osborne: This is a case of only fixing what is necessary to fix. It is

targeted specifically to Lytton as a tool to deal with their lost

bylaws. Other local governments don’t need this tool, so it would be

inappropriate to amend the Local Government Act. Because this is an

exception to the general rules, it needs to be very specific in this

case.

D. Ashton: Thank you very much.

We’ve all talked in this Legislature about climate change and

what’s happening in the world. So a question is: with the threat of

natural disasters heightened in the past few years, why is the

legislation not expanded to take a look at that specifically? I know you

had mentioned other municipalities and other local governments, but I

look at what happened north of Oliver. I look at what’s happened in the

Fraser Valley.

[3:55 p.m.]

As we have discussed, MEVA legislation is a wonderful tool. It can

be a big hammer, unfortunately. So I’m just kind of curious why

government has not looked at expanding that plan for the future, to be

ready, unfortunately, if something else happens. Touch wood it

doesn’t.

Hon. J. Osborne: First of all, I’d say this is a framework that has been developed

for the first time, which could be used in the future, certainly. But it

is targeted specifically to Lytton, and despite the fact that in this

case, it was a massive fire that caused the loss of these records, in

the situation where another community, for some unforeseen reason,

experienced a loss of records and a backup — an extremely unusual

situation — this framework could be applied.

Again, I would come back to the fact that this needs to be

targeted specifically to Lytton to deal absolutely with that need for

legal certainty when it comes to the need to repeal and replace lost

bylaws, and it ensures regulatory oversight where modifications to any

of those legislative requirements are needed on that case-by-case basis.

So this is to provide the council of the village of Lytton with

flexibility to respond to these exact circumstances that have resulted

from an absolutely unprecedented situation.

D. Ashton: Was Lytton consulted on this legislation?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes.

D. Ashton: I overheard earlier that there is a council meeting either tonight

or tomorrow in Lytton. Will this be up for discussion to the people of

Lytton through their current council?

Hon. J. Osborne: We’re not certain what’s on the agenda tomorrow night with

reference to this bill, so I can’t answer the question.

D. Ashton: Well, will council be taking this legislation to the people of

Lytton?

Hon. J. Osborne: Will council be taking this provincial legislation to the people

of Lytton? They’re not required to do so. We are taking the legislation,

the proposed amendments, to the people of British Columbia through this

process today.

D. Ashton: It’s my understanding that Lytton is a council of five — four

elected councillors and a mayor. It’s also my understanding that there

are two vacant seats there. So there is now a council of

three.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s also my understanding that there have been split decisions in

the short period of time that council has been able to get back together

to try and do the work that council, or most councils, would do in

normal situations.

This, again, is incredibly important legislation, not only to the

province of British Columbia and to the people of British Columbia but,

especially, to the people of Lytton. There are going to be some

substantial decisions made through MEVA. I would just ask: do we not

think it is appropriate that council should be discussing MEVA

legislation to the people who are most affected in this — i.e., the

people and citizens of Lytton — so that when it is implemented, the

people of Lytton realize what MEVA can and maybe cannot do for

them?

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to taking this provincial legislation to the people

of Lytton — say, through a council meeting — I would say that we don’t

direct what councils take to the community in that manner. It is their

preroga­tive to do so if they wish.

This provincial legislation, if passed, will enable council to

repeal and replace bylaws on a case-by-case basis, but those cases must

be taken through the normal processes that are defined in the Local

Government Act, and that would require them to do that in an open

council meeting, with the proper notification.

D. Ashton: I thank the minister for that.

I did say in my statement, when we were first discussing Bill 2,

that I have a huge amount of respect for staff at municipalities and

regional districts. In a quote to me was: “MEVA legislation is liked,

because it allows staff to conduct themselves the way they used to be

able to conduct it — with not a lot of consultation with the

community.”

[4:05 p.m.]

I know it’s an extenuating, unprecedented circumstance in Lytton,

but as bylaws that are replaced and maybe updated come forward, it can

really change the scope of building and what the town does, etc., etc. I

would just hope that that is something that the ministerial staff would

be discussing with council — the current council of two, plus the mayor

— to ensure that the people of Lytton realize that, yes, there is a

process, but there is a lot that could be happening quite quickly and

being conducted under MEVA legislation.

Again, I would just ask the minister and staff to ensure — and I

ask — that the people of Lytton will be notified about all the aspects

that MEVA will give to the council of Lytton.

With that, this

section 56…. My peer from Abbotsford West, I know,

has a couple of questions next.

Hon. J. Osborne: Was there a question, and if so, could it be repeated?

D. Ashton: Are staff and ministerial staff going to ensure that the people of

Lytton realize that council now has a procedure in their hands that can

make a huge difference to get people back into Lytton and bring Lytton

back to some normality but also has the ability to bring things forward

a lot quicker without a lot of public consultation? I would just ask if

ministerial staff and the minister are going to ensure that the people

of Lytton understand what MEVA can and cannot do for the town of

Lytton.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. Thank you for the suggestion.

Although we’ve encouraged Lytton to communicate what is taking

place, certainly staff from Municipal Affairs could be available for,

say, a town hall meeting or some other appropriate venue to explain what

these MEVA amendments are and how they will be used by the village of

Lytton and answer questions from the people from the village of

Lytton.

M. de Jong: May I say: the minister heard my exchange with her colleague the

Public Safety Minister earlier, so if there is a theme over the course

of the next few questions that I’m going to ask, I want to reveal it at

the outset so that the minister at least has an idea where my general

area of concern might lie. Then, perhaps, she can address it through the

course of her answers.

The government, I’m certain, and the minister and her colleagues

understand the magnitude of the devastation and the impact that has on

people. I don’t question that. I don’t have any doubts in that regard. I

do, though, in the context of the kinds of frustrations we heard about

in this House during question period from people who own property and

heretofore have lived in Lytton….

They are curious, and therefore I am curious — and I think some of

my colleagues are curious — that the first statutory instrument,

legislative instrument we would see in the House deals with an aspect of

this that I am going to characterize as bureaucratic. I don’t use that

as a pejorative term, but it is designed to address the keeping of

records — important records, but records nonetheless.

[4:10 p.m.]

For all of the components of this, for all of the challenges — we

haven’t had them all enunciated, but there are undoubtedly many — the

government has chosen to exercise its prerogative legislatively at first

instance not to deal with those impediments that are precluding people

from going back to their homes but to deal with this

impediment.

I think it’s appropriate for us to explore, just a little bit,

what the nature of that impediment is that has elevated this to the very

top of the legislative agenda. We are told that, because of the fire,

there is an issue around the destruction of records. Can the minister

advise the committee about the magnitude of that? Clause 1, which we’re

dealing with, refers to some of the dates that are tied, undoubtedly, to

the fire that occurred.

Has the entire body of Lytton law disappeared? When I say “Lytton

law,” I mean, of course, Lytton municipal law. Has the entire body of

Lytton municipal law disappeared? What can the minister say to the

committee about what has been identified as missing at this

point?

Hon. J. Osborne: While I cannot answer the question of exactly how many bylaws have

disappeared completely, and how many bylaws have only been partially

lost, I can say that it is the case that certain bylaws have been lost

in their entirety, and of some bylaws only a portion has been

lost.

Now, fortunately, Lytton can still operate. They do still have a

procedures bylaw, for example. They still have a building bylaw. But the

OCP, the official community plan, is a good example of where the bylaw

itself remains intact, to the best of my understanding, but the maps or

the schedules that are attached to that were lost in the

fire.

The point of the legislation, of course, is to provide them with

the legal certainty, so that they can go about re-establishing the full

suite of their bylaws. to be able to operate and focus on the recovery

that residents are all, obviously, so very, very dependent upon. This is

a critical tool for them to be able to do that. That’s why we’ve brought

the legislation forward at this time.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: We’ll come back to the official community plan. I think it was

astute of the minister to use that as an example, because it may turn

out to…. We’ll explore that in a moment. I think many of us can see the

relevance of that. There’s an aspect of this…. Maybe I’ll bunch these

questions up so I don’t take too much of the committee’s

time.

Is there a chronological element to what was lost? By that, I mean

bylaws that may have been passed in the immediate six months prior to

the fire. Or is it more random than that? I will say to the minister

that my question stems from this understanding: that for any community —

obligated as it is to inform the ministry; these are delegated forms of

government — bylaws that are passed are provided to the provincial

government via the ministry that the minister is in charge

of.

My expectation would have been that the ministry contains a

duplicate copy, as it were, of the body of law that is applicable at the

local level in Lytton. If that’s not the case, I’d be interested to know

why. I would also understand that there may have been recent enactments

of the council of Lytton that had not yet been transmitted to the

ministry.

I’m interested to know whether there was a chronological element,

because the picture that’s being painted right now, I have to say, is

that the repository of the bylaws that govern this community existed

exclusively in a building that was destroyed by fire. That’s not my

understanding. My understanding is that there is a legal requirement for

enactments to be transmitted to the ministry. I’m sure the minister will

be able to provide additional information in that regard.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Generally speaking, the most recent bylaws remain intact. They’re

available on the website. They were recovered through agendas, for

example. But some of the older bylaws are most likely the ones that are

difficult or impossible to recover. So it isn’t random, but there is a

little bit of a pattern there.

However, it is up to the village to let us know which bylaws

specifically are missing or partially missing and need to be repealed

and replaced. Of course, they are prioritizing those and focusing on the

functional bylaws, the ones that they need to operate and undertake

recovery.

Bylaws are not passed on to the ministry by rule, except for

certain financial bylaws. For example, the financial plan bylaw,

development cost charge bylaw, loan authorization bylaws — a copy is on

record with the ministry. But many of the rest of the bylaws are not

required to be registered with the provincial government.

I think that’s that.

M. de Jong: Coming back to the general question and theme that I began with,

can the minister sort of explain for the committee and, perhaps more

importantly, the hundreds of people waiting to return to their homes — I

ask this not to be adversarial or mischievous — how, if at all, the

prioritization of this legislation helps them get home sooner, it now

being close to eight months since they were driven from their homes and

told that they cannot return? How, if at all, does this legislation,

decidedly the number one priority for the government, help those people

get back home?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I do understand the

intention of the question here.

We are taking these steps to amend the MEVA legislation to allow

Lytton to have