Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 9, 2024

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 433

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

Statements

Health Care Auxiliary Day and Delta Hospital Auxiliary

I. Paton

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M221 — Family Compensation Amendment Act, 2024

M. Bernier

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Project Hope and support for ALS research

S. Bond

Emergency Preparedness Week

R. Leonard

Child and Youth Mental Health Day

K. Kirkpatrick

Caregiver Month and support for caregivers

H. Sandhu

Parliamentary mace and power in democracy

A. Olsen

ADHD awareness

J. Rice

Oral Questions

Government action on housing affordability

K. Falcon

Hon. R. Kahlon

R. Merrifield

Tax policies and wealth inequality

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Kahlon

Government policies and rehiring of health care staff

B. Banman

Hon. A. Dix

Economic conditions and government priorities

B. Banman

Hon. B. Bailey

Government action on antisemitism and response to issues

S. Robinson

Hon. N. Sharma

Hon. R. Kahlon

Child care plan and access to services

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Dean

Protection of information and government cybersecurity policies

T. Stone

Hon. M. Farnworth

Petitions

R. Parmar

Reports from Committees

Passenger Directed Vehicles Review Committee,

report, May 9, 2024

M. Elmore

S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 31 — Time allotment for farewell addresses by retiring MLAs

Hon. R. Kahlon

Second Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Act

M. Dykeman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Act

M. Dykeman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Act

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 29 — Amendment to standing orders for private members’ time

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. Babchuk

J. Tegart

A. Olsen

Committee of the Whole House

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

M. Lee

Hon. M. Rankin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Anti-Racism Act (continued)

T. Wat

R. Merrifield

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. N. Sharma

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

B. Stewart

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2024

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I would like to wish a colleague of mine a happy birthday today. I

don’t know why I’m choking up. It’s not my birthday.

I’ve known him since May 17, 2005. We’ve been friends since then, and

we’ll be friends for life — my colleague and everyone’s friend, the member

for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

Happy birthday, Doug.

M. Dykeman: Speaking of birthdays, today is a very special day. Twenty-one years

ago, on this day, I became a mom for the first time. I gave birth to an

adorable 6-pound-7-ounce bundle of joy. I had no idea what I was getting

myself into, but I am the luckiest parent on the planet.

I’m now the mother of a 6 foot 9, 240-pound boy with size 17 shoes. I

look at him, and there’s no resemblance, but he is the kindest, sweetest,

most amazing human. I’ve learned far more from him than he’s learned from

me.

I’m wondering if the House could please join me in wishing him a very

happy 21st birthday.

Happy birthday, A.J.

Hon. G. Lore: I’m joined today by students from Vic High and their teacher Mr.

Bradley. I had the chance to go to Vic High with the Minister of Environment

and Climate Change Strategy and talk to some of the incredible student

leaders there and have a conversation. I wanted to provide an opportunity,

as we’re in the capital, to come to this place to see how this works. The

parliamentary secre­tary for youth, some version of that title, and I

are going to have lunch with them today. It’s just such an honour to be

joined in this space by youth who are interested and engaged, and have an

opportunity to have that conversation.

I’m also joined today by my constituency advisers, Erin Willis and

Adriana Thom.

I know all members of this House know what it means to have your folks

on the ground and in community to support the work and connect.

Will the House please help me make these students, Mr. Bradley and my

CAs welcome.

D. Davies: I’m delighted to welcome a very good friend of mine to the House

today, Bobbi Wisdahl. She lived down here, and then she moved to Fort St.

John for a number of years, and now she’s back down here. It’s really great

that she took the time to come down and visit with all of us and watch the

happenings. I believe it’s her first time watching question period, at least

live.

Will the House please make Bobbi feel welcome.

R. Leonard: Today is the birthday of the first child born of all of my friends and

relatives of my generation. She works in the Premier’s office. She is the

mother of an amazing little boy that I get to call “the Big O.” He calls me

Auntie Rae, and he sometimes visits the House.

Would the House please wish Kate Van Meer-Mass a very happy

birthday.

Hon. M. Dean: Tomorrow is Child Care Provider Appre­ciation Day. Please take

the opportunity to reach out to child care professionals in your community.

In celebration of that, we have some in the House here today from the Cridge

Centre. The Cridge Centre is a non-profit community social service

organization that has been serving the community of Victoria for over 150

years.

Who do we have today? We have Timothy Latour, the school-age-care

preschool coordinator; Danielle Robbins, the infant-toddler coordinator;

Jennifer Hunter, the daycare coordinator; Angela Brunwald, ECE daycare;

Tanya Kuhn, ECE preschool; and Christine Wosilius, the manager.

Would you please make them very welcome and show you appreciation for

their work.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I am so pleased to see a group of high school students and their

teacher joining us in the gallery today. Mr. Brad Cunningham and 13 or 14

senior students from Reynolds Secondary School are here. They are part of

what is called the flex studies program, which is an incredible program that

navigating the ways of society.

It is a great group of students. They are no strangers here to the

Legislature. In fact, I think, thanks to Mr. Cunningham, we have probably

tripled the number of senior high school students that actually come to the

Legislative Assembly.

I would ask all members of the House to make the most welcome here

today.

F. Donnelly: I’d like to introduce one of my constituency advisers, Justin Smith,

who is here with us today. Justin works in my constituency office, along

with the fabulous Linda Asgeirsson, the dynamic Melody Mohebkhah and the

connector, Perisa Chan. They are an amazing team, and I’m so lucky to have

such a talented staff.

Justin is super psyched to watch question period today. In fact, I

wouldn’t be surprised to see him on the chamber floor in the future. Justin

got a taste of politics when he ran for council in the last municipal

election. He says he’s learned a lot since then and is looking forward to

future opportunities.

I wish him the best of luck, and would the House please make him

welcome.

N. Simons: Even after 19 years, I’ve never had the oppor­tunity to wish two

people a happy birthday on the same day. In fact, it’s the first birthday of

my youngest nephew, Auguste, who was born a year ago today.

I want to wish him a happy birthday.

Statements

HEALTH CARE AUXILIARY DAY

AND DELTA HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

I. Paton: It just came to my mind that tomorrow is Health Care Auxiliary

Day. I just want to shout out to…. There are many hospital auxiliaries

across the province, but the best one is the Delta Hospital Auxiliary.

My mom, who’s going to be 97 in August, still goes one day a week to

volunteer at the Delta Hospital Auxiliary Thrift Shop in

Ladner.

Interjection.

I. Paton: I’m third. She’s first, Pam is second, and I’m third.

The Delta Hospital Auxiliary is donating $3 million to the new

extended care ward that we’re going to get built and $700,000 this year

to new equipment at Delta Hospital.

So a big shout-out to everyone involved in volunteering for your

hospital auxiliaries across B.C.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M221 — FAMILY COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

M. Bernier presented a bill intituled Family Compen­sation

Amendment Act, 2024.

M. Bernier: I move that the bill intituled the Family Compensation Amendment

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

introduced and read for the first time now.

Logan Power was a vibrant young man in Dawson Creek attending

secondary school in 2016. But tragically, his life was cut short by a

suspected drunk driver. Despite their profound loss, Logan’s family

received no compensation, simply because Logan did not meet the narrow

economic criteria recognized under the discriminatory existing

laws.

This is, unfortunately, not an isolated case in British Columbia.

Under the B.C. Family Compensation Act, the lives of children, seniors,

those with disabilities and those without dependents are actually

considered worthless when they are killed.

British Columbia stands as an outlier. Many other prov­inces

have modernized their laws to reflect a more comprehensive understanding

of loss and accountability of wrongful deaths. Our laws have not been

updated in alignment with these changes, leaving many British Columbians

unprotected and their families, like the Powers, without

recourse.

Logan’s law proposes to correct these injustices by expanding

eligibility for claims and adjusting compensation levels to align more

closely with the realities of wrongful deaths. This includes allowing

parents, siblings or dependents to claim compensation in the event of a

wrong­ful death. This compensation will help families cover

expenses, medical and funeral costs, travel, accommo­dation and

other costs incurred while caring for the injured person before their

death.

[10:15 a.m.]

It also helps align British Columbia with other prov­inces,

which have already updated their laws to address the consequences of

wrongful deaths more comprehensively.

The bill introduces necessary changes that were recommended by the

Ministry of Attorney General back in 2010, addressing critical gaps that

have allowed these injustices to persist. It will ensure that all

families, regardless of the economic status of their loved ones, can

seek and obtain justice.

People are increasingly aware of these issues and demand that we

take decisive action to reform our wrongful death compensation laws, and

it’s time for us to ensure that this justice is accessible for every

family touched by this tragedy.

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

Motion approved.

M. Bernier: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M221, Family Compensation Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PROJECT HOPE AND

SUPPORT FOR ALS

RESEARCH

S. Bond: On April 26, both the Minister of Health and I attended a

remarkable event at the UBC Centre for Brain Health. Project Hope has

been driven by ALS patients, their families, caregivers, the ALS Society

of B.C. and successive governments.

Project Hope has been described as a beacon of light in the fight

against ALS, and I could not agree more. Under the leadership of

neurologist and ALS researcher Dr. Erik Pioro, a world-class ALS

clinical care team will be assembled. They will be the cornerstone of

Project Hope and will allow ALS patients to participate in

groundbreaking clinical trials and research endeavours, all with the

goal of finding a cure for ALS.

The ALS Society describes Project Hope as more than a project.

Rather, it is a movement towards understanding, treating and ultimately

defeating ALS. It is a bold and ambitious plan and journey.

Attending the event was Dr. Andrew Eisen, who founded the ALS

Society of British Columbia. He is a distinguished ALS

physician-scientist. There were ALS board members and, perhaps most

importantly, some who have been impacted directly by ALS, and families

and loved ones of those who have lost their lives to ALS. It was an

emotional day for all of us.

Yes, we are inspired by the hope that this work brings, but our

hearts hurt for those who will not see the direct benefits of the

incredible work that will be done by Dr. Pioro and his team. We also

want to recognize the tireless efforts of Wendy Toyer. She was a

significant part of reaching this milestone.

It has been a dream of many to bring an end to ALS through

creating a world-class ALS centre at UBC. After listening to Dr. Pioro

share his vision and passion, I have every confidence that British

Columbia, fuelled by hope and driven by science, will play a pivotal

role in making a difference in the lives of those affected by this

devastating disease.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

R. Leonard: This week is Emergency Preparedness Week, and since technology

sure plays a

part in all of our lives, this year’s theme is “Using

technology before, during and after emergencies.”

You never know how you will react when the adrenaline rush hits,

and being ready beforehand will help keep you safe.

With wildfire season coming up, it’s a good time to get to know

the hazards in your community, make your emergency plan and build an

emergency kit and grab-and-go bag. And hot off the presses, you can get

started with our brand-new online emergency-ready planner at

preparedbc.ca/emergencyready. It’ll help make it faster and easier to

create an emergency and evacuation plan that’s tailored to you and your

family.

The planner helps people identify emergency meeting places and

document important contact, medical and insurance information. It

recommends supplies for your emergency kits and grab-and-go bags, as

well as FireSmart steps to protect your home from wildfire. Make a date

with your loved ones to play with the planner, so when you hear the B.C.

emergency alert on your cell phone or radio or on television, like you

received on Wednesday morning at 10:55, you’ll all be ready.

B.C. is forecasted to have an active wildfire season, and places

like Vancouver Island are not immune to the risk. You can access the

B.C. Wildfire app to keep abreast of wildfire conditions, fire bans,

evacuation alerts and orders.

[10:20 a.m.]

Our government also has a new online portal to help emergency

responders find commercial accommodation for evacuees. These new and

improved tools are released by our government as part of Emergency

Preparedness Week to help keep people safe through wildfires, droughts,

floods and earthquakes.

There’s no time like the present to do your part to get prepared

for the unexpected.

CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH DAY

K. Kirkpatrick: May 7 was National Child and Youth Mental Health Day. It’s really

meant as a time for us to come together and to recognize that there are

significant mental health challenges that are faced by our children and

our youth. It’s really a time for us to pledge to help and

support.

It’s a really different time than it was when most of us in the

people, it can be…. It’s an opportunity to be bullied.

There are all kinds of things there that are challenging and

concerning — climate change. These young people…. I don’t think we

realize enough how much climate change weighs on their shoulders every

day and causes a lot of anxiety.

I was speaking to one of our interns last week. She’s 22, and she

was talking about the fact that we all walk around with AirPods on now,

right? And we can sit…. You know, you go into a room, and there are

people around, and you sit there, and you just don’t have conversations

anymore. So for young people, our technology has started to disconnect

them from people.

She said something that really made me think about this. I hope

she doesn’t mind, because I didn’t know I was going to talk about this

until just now. It’s that we went from having a large social circle as a

young person, and now it’s really limited, and a lot of it is because of

the AirPods and the not talking to people. Everything is done via text.

That can be quite concerning, because we need to have those supports as

a young person.

We heard from Take a Hike the other day that, really, we don’t

have enough mental health supports in schools for young people. We owe

them that. They are our future, and we need to make sure that we’re

holding them up and treating them well and giving them the supports that

they need. They need early support and resources in schools.

Together, let’s help our young people, lift them up and give them

the support they need.

CAREGIVER MONTH

AND SUPPORT FOR

CAREGIVERS

H. Sandhu: I rise in this House to recognize May being Caregiver Month and to

honour all the hard work and dedication that caregivers offer around the

clock in our province and around the world.

Caregivers are some of the most caring people in this world. They

always think about the well-being of people in their care, and they can

sometimes forget their own needs. We cannot imagine the world and care

without caregivers.

Often what we see about their sacrifices, dedication and hard work

is just the tip of the iceberg. It takes lots of patience, kindness,

care, hard work and dedication to become a caregiver. While we recognize

caregivers today to honour them, we also need to reflect on and create

awareness about caregiver burnout. Their work includes many sleepless

nights and countless hours spent supporting their loved ones. I want to

acknowledge this and let people know that supports are available around

the province.

Our government has invested in, in Budget 2024, the expansion of

the family and friend caregivers support program. This program provides

support for caregiver assistance, navigating the health care system as

well as learning how to take care of your own well-being while caring

for someone close to you. We also continue to expand culturally

appropriate adult day programs in the province. These programs not only

improve the lives and socialization of seniors but also benefit

caregivers.

If you are a caregiver or know a caregiver, please help to support

them and increase awareness of family and friend caregivers. Family

Caregivers of B.C. is also a great resource. They offer supports to

caregivers by telephone or online, in-person or virtual meetings and

providing resources. I urge you to go to

www.familycaregiversbc.ca.

Please join me in recognizing family and friend caregivers in our

province and across the country for the selfless, tireless, exceptional

care they provide and honouring their role in so many people’s

lives.

[10:25 a.m.]

PARLIAMENTARY MACE

AND POWER IN

DEMOCRACY

A. Olsen: For the past year, I’ve been doing this work as an MLA, and I’ve

also been doing graduate studies in leadership at Royal Roads

University. I wrote a paper recently focused on power and our

relationship as MLAs to power.

Think of all the ways that you intersect with power. It was a

profound experience for me to think on this, and the ceremonial mace was

a central feature of the work that I did. How many of us have thought

about the mace, the type of power that’s symbolized in that mace? Each

day it arrives, carried by our Sergeant-at-Arms, leading a procession of

the Speaker and Clerks. Ever wondered why?

The mace, also known as a bludgeon, is a modified club, often

reinforced with stone, bone, bronze or iron. It’s from the Dark Ages,

and our silver one here was made in the 1950s. There is no law or decree

that started the Speaker’s procession or giving the ceremonial mace its

power. The power comes from what happens when you get blud­geoned

by a mace.

In the 14th to 15th century, mayors of British towns had

sergeants-at-arms who carried a mace and for protection for arrests. It

was also the sergeant’s standard weapon of choice at the time. In 1414,

Henry V appointed Nicholas Maudit the Sergeant-at-Arms for Westminster,

and like the mayors he had seen around, he brought with him his mace.

Interesting.

The Speaker at the time was simply just the mouthpiece of the

Commons.

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker.

When the Speaker got the protection of the Sergeant and the mace,

its power in the mace transferred to the Speaker. And centuries later,

in this Speaker’s precinct, what the Speaker says goes.

Power moves in mysterious ways, and the power represented in the

mace is a brutish, thuggish, primitive sort of power. Is that the

expression of power that we want our democracy represented

by?

ADHD AWARENESS

J. Rice: Today I rise to talk about an often-not-talked-about issue of

ADHD. ADHD is often classified or diagnosed as a mental health disorder,

but in fact it’s a neurological development disorder, meaning that the

brain is formed not neurotypically, so it’s something that you have from

birth. It was misunderstood for a long time as a behavioural disorder,

which we know it is not.

Unfortunately, because some of the symptoms seem like they are

very easy to treat by neurotypical people, it’s led to kids with ADHD

having heard 20,000 times more negative comments or input than a

neurotypical child. So by age 12, if you have ADHD, you have heard

20,000 more negative comments.

They can be really benign. A parent could think this is the right

thing to do. Why have you forgotten your homework again? How could you

lose your keys again? Why can’t you just sit still? While we think these

are normal parenting comments, they are in fact quite

harmful.

An ADHD brain looks differentl it’s formed differently. A main key

factor is the fact that the dopamine receptors — there’s a dysregulation

with that. Twenty-eight percent of people who are referred to a mood

disorders clinic for depression or anxiety…. Twenty-eight percent

actually have untreated ADHD. Physicians and doctors, very informed on

prescribing medications such as SSRIs for depression and anxiety —

however, not educated enough on ADHD.

I wanted to conclude with this saying, which is very relatable. I

think of Melanie Mark, who when she departed here, talked about her

invisible disability of ADHD. It’s like how could someone’s ADHD go

undiagnosed for so long because they are a high-functioning,

overachieving woman, constantly bordering on burnout but seen as fine.

Because as long as that woman didn’t burn out, no one really noticed.

Functioning, but not fine.

[10:30 a.m.]

I think that is something we all need to know if you’re

neurotypical. That is something that non-neurotypicals are struggling

with every single day.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOUSING

AFFORDABILITY

K. Falcon: Shocking new data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

reveals that last year less than one in ten mortgages in our province

were issued to first-time homebuyers. B.C. has the lowest rate in the

entire country. Our kids are losing hope as their dream of ever owning a

home vanished under this NDP Premier and his total failure to deliver

results on his promise of housing afford­ability for our

kids.

B.C. United has a plan to fix it by turning rent payments into

down payments with our rent-to-own plan.

My question to the Premier: when will this Premier finally deliver

results by adopting B.C. United’s rent-to-own plan and bring back hope

that our kids can one day purchase a home, raise a family, and build a

future right here in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No doubt we can agree in this House that people across this

province, across this country need to be able to have a place either to

rent at an affordable rate, or those that rent have the ability to move

into home ownership. We, I think, all support that notion.

What’s needed to do that are reforms. The housing system, as it is

now, is not working for too many people in our province. We have young

families, young people who don’t see an opportunity or a pathway to get

into home ownership. That’s why the measures that we put in, with our

Homes for People strategy, addresses all those levers.

The member shared some data. I can share with the member that B.C.

is building 2.5 times more housing than Ontario, adjusted for their

size. In fact, our government is seeing 150 percent more units per

resident than the PC government in Ontario.

The measures we’re doing, putting in place and allowing three- to

four-unit single-family lots, allowing for housing to be built near

transit, reforming our system so that people can have an opportunity to

stay in our communities, grow in our communities, are something we’re

committed to, and we’re leading the country in that work.

K. Falcon: There in that answer lies the problem, for all the folks that are

here listening, because they believe that government is the solution to

every problem, when they don’t realize that government is the problem.

The fact of the matter is the result they’re getting in British Columbia

is that we have the highest, most unaffordable housing prices in North

America, the highest average rents in Canada. That’s the result that

their government-first approach is getting us.

Eighteen months ago the Premier promised results that people could

touch, see and experience — 18 months ago. What parents are experiencing

across British Columbia is watching their children have to leave B.C. in

search of affordability, a fact that was highlighted by the Alberta

government ads, last night on the Canucks hockey game, enticing more

young British Columbians to move to Alberta, the land increasingly seen

as opportunity.

Last year alone — I hear the snickering over on that side of the

House — 70,000 young British Columbians moved to Alberta. Why? It’s

because Alberta has lower taxes. Alberta has affordable housing. Alberta

offers the kind of opportunity that used to exist here in British

Columbia. We need to give our kids hope again, which is why our B.C.

United plan is about turning rent payments into down

payments…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: …and helping young people get back into housing and believe

they’ve got a future in B.C.

Again, when will the Premier finally deliver results — not

announcements, results — so they can adopt an option that will work:

B.C. United’s plan, our rent-to-own plan to turn rent payments into down

payments and help our young people have an opportunity to own a home,

raise a family and build a future right here in British

Columbia?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I think all members of this House can agree that people

that are renting should have an opportunity to buy a home. That’s why,

when we brought the legislation in place last fall to allow three or

four units on single-family lots, they opposed it. They opposed it. They

didn’t want to see those types of opportunities being created,

opportunities for multi-generational families to be able to live on one

parcel of land.

Now, the member talks about people and moving to different

provinces. We have 10,000 people coming to B.C., net, every 37 days —

10,000.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Leader of the B.C. United says, “Oh, they’re coming

internationally.” People are coming to British Columbia for opportunity.

It’s one of the strongest economies in the country. People are coming

here for opportunities.

Now, the leader of the BCU party here says: “You know what? We’re

going to do what we did before.” He’s going to dust off the old

playbook. Hon. Speaker, you can go to Vancouver and visit a place called

Little Mountain, and you can see the legacy of this member here and his

colleagues in full action. People of British Columbia cannot afford to

head back in that direction again.

R. Merrifield: Well, news flash to the minister: we actually have the third-worst

economy in all of Canada right now. Yeah, a bummer about that

one.

Today the Bank of Canada is warning of a steep jump in mortgage

payments due to rising interest costs. Who’s to blame? Well, Scotiabank

confirmed that the majority of interest rate hikes are the direct result

of provincial inflationary deficits like the record-setting ones created

by this NDP.

It’s no wonder why nearly 70,000 of our children, youth and young

professionals left for Alberta last year. They can’t afford a mortgage

or rent. B.C. United’s rent-to-own plan through new homes frees up

rental apartments and takes pressure off the housing market.

When will the Premier finally deliver results by adopting B.C.

United’s rent-to-own plan and bring back hope that our kids desperately

need to one day purchase their own home and raise their own families

right here in B.C.?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We share that commitment of wanting to see young people be able to

stay in our province, to be able to raise their families in communities

that they grew up in. That’s why we brought such bold action into the

Legislature last fall.

They opposed many of those initiatives. They opposed most of those

initiatives, and it was a shame, because now those very initiatives that

we have as part of our Homes for People strategy are being adopted

across the country. In fact, the federal government has said, “We’re

going to tie infrastructure funding, if you do the work that B.C. is

doing,” in communities throughout the province.

I’ll share another interesting fact for them. They say people are

going to Alberta. You know who’s coming from Alberta? Doctors, nurses.

You look at the data. I’m happy to share it with the member across the

way.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We are seeing doctors and nurses coming to British

Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll end with this, hon. Speaker. The member mentions

Scotiabank.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that the CEO of Scotiabank was an

author of a report on how to address the housing crisis in Ontario. We

have adopted all the policies that the CEO suggested, and they’re

looking to B.C. as a leader in the country when it comes to reforms

needed to ensure there’s housing available for people in British

Columbia.

The Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: I think that the minister needs to get outside of the echo

chamber, because the very initiatives that he’s mentioning are creating

housing chaos within our municipalities. How do we know? Housing starts

in Q1 are down in B.C. High taxes, high fees and high rents are causing

our kids to give up and move to Alberta.

[10:40 a.m.]

According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., the average

two-bedroom rental will soon reach $2,800 in Metro Vancouver, up $1,000

a month from 2021. But the best that the NDP Premier and this Housing

Minister can offer is a BC Builds plan adding less than 1 percent of the

700,000 homes that CMHC says are needed to restore

affordability.

Why won’t the Premier adopt the B.C. United plan to turn rent

payments into down payments and give young people hope again?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, everyone in this place…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …supports the idea of somebody renting getting into home

ownership. In fact, the federal Liberals, in their platform, committed

to a program similar to what they’ve announced. They’ve had challenges

rolling it out. They’ve had challenges rolling it out because they know

that it’s a very difficult proposal to move forward. But that being

said, the principle is something we support as well.

What I’ll say to the member…. She mentioned CMHC data. CMHC says

we’re building 2½ times more housing than Ontario — 2½ times. CMHC’s

March 2024 monthly housing reports has this information. I’m happy to

share with the member.

We know that the system that we have for housing is not working

for too many people. For too many years, we had governments — in fact,

the former B.C. Liberal Party, governments like them — who decided: “You

know what? We’re not going to invest in the affordable housing that

people need. We’re going to just stay out of the way and, somehow, this

is going to solve itself.”

We’ve seen that failed policy and the outcomes that come from

that. I think British Columbians are ready for the actions that we’re

taking. In fact, I know they are, because we’re getting messages from

people and leaders across the country who are saying: “We would like to

replicate the initiatives that you are taking on to ensure that our

communities have housing that they need as well.”

TAX POLICIES AND WEALTH INEQUALITY

S. Furstenau: With close to half a billion dollars being earmarked for seven

FIFA games, it is important to ask: “Who benefits from government

spending?” FIFA is not designed for most British Columbians. While the

wealthiest will enjoy the fanfare, the majority of people will be

footing the bill while we watch from our living rooms.

Meanwhile, B.C. has the lowest taxes on people who earn $150,000

or more, making a mockery of our progressive taxation system and

eliminating that most Canadian value: fairness. British Columbians are

struggling to get by, struggling to afford housing, struggling to buy

their groceries, and programs like SAFER, disability supports and the

Canada-B.C. rental benefit don’t provide enough of a safety

net.

My question is to the Premier. Will his government commit to

tackling income inequality head-on by adjusting our highest tax rate

brackets to fall in line with other provinces so that the highest

earners pay their fair share?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Here we have it. One party says that we have taxes too high,

another party confirming that we actually have some of the lowest taxes

for people earning less than $150,000 a year.

The member asks about FIFA. I’ll say this.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll say this about FIFA. We are going to be welcoming the world

to British Columbia. This is one of the premier events in the world. The

member says: “Who is going to benefit?” It’s going to benefit our

communities. It’s going to benefit our local economies. We’re going to

welcome people. It’s going to support our tourism economy.

We have partners —

xʷməθkʷəy̓əm,

Sḵwx̱wú7­mesh,

səlilwətaɬ — who are excited

because it means economic opportunities for those nations. Everyone is

going to find benefits from this.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I certainly hope that all members in this place are able to use

this to also promote sports and promote physical activity amongst our

youth. There are so many valuable things that come from promoting sport.

I believe in it strongly. My colleagues believe in it

strongly.

But at the same time, we are also increasing funding for SAFER. We

are increasing programs for people. We can do both, and that’s what we

are committed to on this side of the House.

The Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: My question was about income tax brackets for the highest earners

in British Columbia. Inequality has gotten so bad that we now casually

talk about the cost of living, the cost of just meeting basic needs to

stay alive.

[10:45 a.m.]

This government’s failure to address wealth inequality is evident

not only in its willingness to fund FIFA but not to ensure that

everybody in B.C. has housing. While people struggle, the oil and gas

sector keeps taking record profits. The federal government’s failure to

bring in a windfall profit tax means that $4.6 billion in revenues, that

could help all of these people who need it across this country and in

this province, was just left off the table. Instead of meeting the basic

needs of people in B.C., this government has subsidized the dirtiest

industry in the world.

My question again is to the Premier. Will the Premier commit to

advocating for a windfall profit tax on the oil and gas

sector?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There were many comments made in that question. I’ll start with

housing. There is no government in this country that is investing at the

levels we are into affordable housing. We are the only province that’s

funding housing for Indigenous people on and off reserve. We have

funding available for communities throughout the province. We have

projects opening everywhere.

The member talks about inequality. I can assure the member that

every one of my colleagues got into politics to address inequality. We

want to make sure that our neighbours have the same opportunities that

we want for our own families, for our own kids. That’s why we’ve taken

measures to reduce taxes for working people, people making below

$150,000 a year. We took those steps because we understand that working

people need supports.

We have many more initiatives that we’re going to be doing in the

future, but we are committed, I can assure that member, to addressing

inequality in all of our work that we do.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

AND REHIRING OF HEALTH CARE

STAFF

B. Banman: This Premier’s NDP are radical activists out to shape British

Columbia for their own extreme image.

This Premier and his government stand for taking away the rights

of women to be safe and treated fairly, taking away the rights of

parents to be involved in their children’s education, taking away the

rights of landowners who are following local zoning, taking away the

rights of communities by overriding official community plans, taking

away the rights of people who voice opinions over housing decisions,

taking away the rights of people to choose what kind of vehicle to own,

taking away the rights of people to access Crown land and private

property, taking away the rights of nurses and health care workers to be

employed and taking away the rights of people to access health care in a

timely manner.

The list goes on and on and on. It seems like this NDP Premier

hasn’t found any private rights that he respects. And he’s gambling with

B.C.’s future by running the largest deficits in B.C.’s history, not

just last year or this year but for the foreseeable future.

My question to the Premier: will this Premier start giving rights

back to everyday, hard-working people instead of taking them away? He

can start by hiring our health care workers.

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, I disagree with the member’s characterization. In

British Columbia, we believed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in

supporting people in health care, that we needed to support people in

long-term care, that we needed to support health care workers. We did so

in an unprecedented way, I might add with the unanimous support, for

most of that period, of this Legislature. I’m very proud of

that.

We continue to act. We talked about doctors and nurses earlier. We

continue to act, consistent with the Public Health Act, to support our

public health professionals in B.C., who have done an outstanding job, a

world-leading job in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

We believe, indeed, in expanding rights for people in B.C. We

believe, for example, that women have rights over their own bodies.

We’ve expanded….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Let’s continue.

Hon. A. Dix: And we believe that children have the right to go to school

without being harassed.

The Speaker: House Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.

[10:50 a.m.]

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND

GOVERNMENT

PRIORITIES

B. Banman: GDP growth in British Columbia before the NDP took power was

around 2.5 percent. Over the last painful seven years, B.C.’s GDP growth

has averaged around 1.5 percent. Now, with this NDP’s reckless policies,

B.C.’s GDP growth is estimated to be as low as 0.4 percent by 2030. For

regular people, this means smaller pay­cheques and bigger

bills.

B.C. is facing a crisis in everything that matters. Most

importantly, we have an economy that’s going off a cliff and a Premier

who is asleep at the wheel. This is a recipe for economic ruin, which

will destroy the future of families in British Columbia. Young people

are struggling to move out on their own because housing is either not

available or unaffordable. Food inflation is going through the

roof.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

B. Banman: Private sector job growth is virtually non-existent. Wages are not

going up.

The Speaker: Let’s have a question, Member.

B. Banman: More and more people are making the heartbreaking decision to

leave B.C., as it is the only option for them to be able to build a

future.

The Speaker: Member, let’s have a question, please.

B. Banman: My question. When will this Premier change course and bring in

policies to promote economic growth and start fighting for people who

are trying to build a life here in B.C. instead of standing with radical

activist extremists who want to tear down B.C., destroy everything we’ve

built…

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

B. Banman: …and think it’s wrong to call ourselves British

Columbians?

The Speaker: We heard the question. Thank you.

Hon. B. Bailey: What I would say to the member op­pos­ite is never let

the facts get in the way of a good story. Boy.

Our GDP has increased since 2017 by 16.9 percent. B.C. continues

to be an economic driver in Canada.

The member opposite made many false statements, including a claim

that we have a low average income. In fact, we lead the country with the

highest average income of $34.68. We’ve also done incredible work to

make sure that the minimum wage has been raised for the average British

Columbian.

We continue to grow our economy, driving diversification, to

ensure that we have a strong economy to go forward. We’re seeing

incredible investments coming into our economy from E-One Moli of $1

billion, incredible investments coming into our life sciences sector and

many, many more.

Our economy continues to do well. We’re leading the

country.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM

AND RESPONSE TO

ISSUES

S. Robinson: Antisemitism is on the rise in Canada. In 2023, there were over

5,000 documented acts of violence, harassment and vandalism aimed at

Jews, more than twice the documented incidents in 2022.

I have a letter here from Premier John Horgan written to Nico

Slobinsky, senior director with the Centre for Israel and Jewish

Affairs. The letter is dated June 14, 2022. In the letter, Premier

Horgan notes that the province of British Columbia fully supports the

federal government’s adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and

rejects all forms of discrimination, as outlined in Canada’s anti-racism

strategy.

That was Premier Horgan’s commitment: to use the IHRA definition

of antisemitism when addressing this hatred.

Does our current Premier continue to support this commitment to

use the IHRA definition of antisemitism?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question.

Clearly, we all stand in solidarity in this House against the

disturbing rise of antisemitism in this province. I know the member has

been very vocal in what the community is facing. Hate in all its forms

is unacceptable in this province. We had a good discussion about our

approach to responding to hate through the Anti-Racism Act that’s before

this bill.

I understand that for many Jewish people in this prov­ince….

The IHRA definition of antisemitism is an important tool to help

government understand what antisemitism is showing up in the province.

We’ve taken the approach, through our bills and legislation, to not

adopt specific

definitions in legislation.

[10:55 a.m.]

Those things change over time. The way communities are

experiencing hate and the way communities tell us what they’re

experiencing changes over time. What we need to do is continually meet

with communities, understand what’s happening to them in time and then

respond.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

S. Robinson: I’m going to hear that as a no, they’re not adopting the IHRA

definition. This wasn’t a question about legislation. It was a question

that was…. The former Premier said that we would use that definition as

a working definition, but clearly, that seems to no longer be the

case.

On Yom HaShoah, the Premier committed to stand up to antisemitism.

We have seen what happens when leaders are silent.

On the very same day, on Yom HaShoah, we heard the member for

Richmond-Queensborough suggest that the antisemitism we are seeing on

campus is somehow justified because of what he experienced in India as a

Sikh individual. Therefore, the hate we see on campus is not targeted at

Jews. It is just criticizing a state. His subsequent apology is for his

lack of clarity, not an apology for tokenism or for the deep hurt that

he has caused.

The lived experience of UBC Jewish students, faculty and staff is

that they are not welcome on campus because they believe in the right to

self-determination. They are being targeted because they are

Jews.

This is not the first time this member has had to make an apology

for his antisemitism, which consistently turn out to be non-apologies.

He’s also not the only New Democrat who has made antisemitic comments.

Clearly, the government caucus is not interested or does not understand

what antisemitism is and how it looks.

I’m going to ask if this government is interested in doing any

antisemitism training to make sure that they don’t step into it yet

again.

Hon. R. Kahlon: All members of this House had an all-party committee. Part of the

recommendations that came from the all-party committee was that there be

anti-racism and anti-hate training to address challenges in society but

also to enrich our knowledge and understanding of how different

communities face racism. We, on our side, have committed…. We will

ensure, when the Legislature comes back, that everyone has that

training.

We had a great discussion yesterday, the member and I, on the

important steps that we have to do with communities as we move forward

to address hate in our communities. Now, the member made a comment

yesterday, in fact…. There are some Jewish communities we should be

listening to, and the other ones are fringe. The member said “fringe,”

specifically.

We don’t take that approach. We believe that all Jewish members of

our community have their own lived experience. We want to hear from all

of them.

Part of the work that we’ll be doing, with the anti-racism

strategy, is taking the next steps, hopefully with the unanimous support

of this House, and engaging with communities to ensure that their

understanding of what racism is and how they feel it are reflected in

the work we do as we go forward.

CHILD CARE PLAN

AND ACCESS TO

SERVICES

K. Kirkpatrick: Eighteen months ago the Premier promised “results that people can

feel, touch and experience in their lives.” For mothers like Alisha

Ludlow, these promises mean nothing, and she is losing hope.

Alisha can’t find child care, limiting her to part-time work and

putting her on the brink of homelessness. She struggles to pay the bills

because she can only work four hours a day due to the lack of child

care. This is seven years after this NDP government promised universal

$10-a-day child care.

After seven years and despite running the largest inflationary

deficit in B.C.’s history, why has the Premier utterly failed to deliver

on his promise to Alisha and thousands of other parents?

Hon. M. Dean: We know that child care is a really important core service to so

many families in British Columbia. It is one of the largest expenses

that families face.

Seven years ago it was a real patchwork. It was left to market

forces, and it was very difficult for families to find child care and to

be able to afford child care.

We have been working on our ChildCareBC plan. We now have 15,000

$10-a-day spaces in British Columbia. That’s not all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Dean: With our affordable child care benefit, over 35,000 children and

their families are supported monthly. Low and middle-income families

save up to $1,250 per month per child.

[11:00 a.m.]

Over 140,000 families are being supported by at least one of our

programs, and we are increasing the number of spaces in the province by

thousands.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. M. Dean: We’re making a real difference, and I hear from families that this

is life-changing. We cannot afford to go back to the situation where

child care was not accessible and not affordable for British

Columbians.

PROTECTION OF INFORMATION AND

GOVERNMENT CYBERSECURITY

POLICIES

T. Stone: This Premier continues to display why this NDP government won the

award for being the most secretive government in all of Canada. The

Premier concealed a massive cyberattack on the provincial government for

eight days.

I don’t know why members opposite are smiling, but eight days this

cyberattack was concealed, only for the Premier to issue a quiet

statement while everyone was busy watching last night’s Canucks

game.

British Columbians are rightly worried about their sensitive

information, wondering if their information has been compromised by a

foreign-state-sponsored cyberattack.

The question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier say today

who was responsible for this attack, how much sensitive personal

information was compromised and why the Premier would have waited eight

days to issue a quiet statement during a Canucks game to disclose this

very serious breach to British Columbians?

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

What I’ll tell the member is this. Nothing was hidden at

all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. Speaker, now I understand the triple-delete scandal

with that kind of nonsense.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, you asked a question. A question was asked. Are you

interested in listening to the answer or not?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Here’s not indignation. Here’s fact. The fact is this.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Why people are interrupting, I don’t understand.

Please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: He’s got the floor, Member. Don’t argue with me.

Hon. M. Farnworth: He asked what I believe, or what the public believes, to be a

serious question about their information. I’m trying to tell the hon.

member that when an incident like this happens, the first thing that

happens is the protection of the system, the protection of the

information. That’s done by technical experts, who work on the advice of

the Canadian cybersecurity system.

The reason they do that is because if you go out and give

information before that’s done, you actually end up compromising

people’s information, potentially.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The priority is to ensure that the system is protected and that

information is protected.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is why we are able to say that there is no evidence that

there was any compromising of sensitive information.

We take our advice from the technical security experts in this

facility. We take our advice from the Canadian cybersecurity service,

who deal with these kinds of things on an ongoing basis, along with the

agencies who do the investigations.

That’s who we will take the advice on in terms of protecting

public information every single time. We will never take advice from an

opposition that…. All they ever want to do is play politics.

[End of question period.]

R. Parmar: I rise to present a petition.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Parmar: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of John Bruzas and a

number of people from my community, calling on the government to amend the

Trespass Act to include a statement on rainforest trees.

[11:05 a.m.]

Reports from Committees

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW

PASSENGER DIRECTED

VEHICLES

M. Elmore: I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee to

Review Passenger Directed Vehicles.

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

Motion approved.

M. Elmore: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed.

M. Elmore: I move that the report be adopted and, in doing so, would like to

make some brief comments.

Our committee makes 34 recommendations to improve service

provision and ensure an effective regulatory environment for

passenger-directed vehicles. Our recommen­dations were informed by

a very robust series of infor­mational briefings from a number of

public bodies and, as well, a very well-attended public consultation.

During our public consultation, the committee heard from taxi and

ride-hailing drivers and companies as well as individuals, communities

and groups involved in this sector.

Committee members developed our recommendations based on a number

of key principles that we agreed on. These include equity,

rural lens and data-driven and transparent decision-making. We agreed

and reached consensus to highlight improvements to accessible services

of priority.

We know, all members in the House know, that serving people with

disabilities is a matter of respecting human rights. Throughout our

consultations, we heard just a lot of stories from British Columbians

with disabilities about the significant challenges they experience in

trying to access passenger-directed vehicles.

Our committee, and I know our House, shares the perspective that

British Columbians of all abilities should be treated with dignity and

respect and have equitable and timely access to service. On behalf of

all committee members, I would like to sincerely thank the individuals

with disabilities who took the time to share their very personal

experiences with us.

The committee also heard about the unique challenges faced by

B.C.’s small, rural and remote communities when it comes to

transportation. Going forward, we hope to see a holistic approach

adopted to improve transportation connectivity.

Throughout the course of our work, we also heard about the need

for more data in all aspects of the transportation sector. The committee

supports evidence-based decision-making using quality data that’s easily

accessible. Ongoing data collection and analysis will be key to inform

future regulatory and policy development.

I’d like to acknowledge staff in the Parliamentary Committees

Office who supported our review, including Karan Riarh, Lisa Hill,

Danielle Migeon, Jonathon Hamilton, Sean Morgado and Mary

Newell.

Thank you, as well, to Amanda Heffelfinger, Dwight Schmidt and

Danielle Suter from Hansard Services for their assistance with our

work.

Finally, I’d like to express my appreciation to all committee

members. We’re at the end of our deliberations, and I appreciate your

efforts.

I want to recognize the member for West Vancouver–​Sea to

Sky, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, the member for Burnaby North

and the member for Richmond-Steveston for their dedication.

Particularly, I also recognize the support of our very capable

Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–​Valemount.

S. Bond: I very much appreciate the remarks of our Chair, the member for

Vancouver-Kensington. I appre­ciated the work that she did, making

sure that our committee got its work done. We went through some

challenging discussions, but very much appreciated that.

I certainly want to echo the comments of the Chair of our

committee. Committees work because British Columbians speak up and take

the time and effort to actually contribute to the work that’s being done

by committees. One of the things that I think moved all of us, as

committee members, were the stories that we heard from persons with

disabilities. In fact, we heard stories where British Columbians with

disabilities face discrimination and, quite frankly, poor transportation

services.

We know how absolutely essential it is for there to be accessible

transportation in British Columbia. Persons with disabilities want to

engage fully in their communities. Whether they’re going to work or

school, accessing services, transportation is critical to that

participation.

Particularly, people with visual disabilities — very difficult to

hear their stories. Imagine what it would be like to be dropped off not

knowing where you were. Imagine being denied a ride because you have a

service animal. Those things actually happen in British Columbia on a

regular basis.

[11:10 a.m.]

Our committee was very moved by the stories that we heard. In

fact, it had a significant impact on the recommendations that we present

today.

As someone who lives and represents rural and smaller communities,

there are very unique transportation issues. MLAs who serve those parts

of the province hear those concerns all the time. Together we need to

focus on addressing the gaps that exist in transportation networks in

these communities and across the province.

Like my colleague and the Chair of our committee, we want to

acknowledge the contributions of the committee members and also

recognize her work as our Chair.

Most importantly, we want to thank the Parliamentary Committees

Office and Hansard. We spent a lot of very late evenings working

together, spending time together.

Hansard — they were often, I’m sure, wondering about some of the

discussions we had, but we’re very grateful.

And I, too, want to express our thanks to Karan Riarh, Lisa,

Jonathon, Danielle and Sean in particular.

I really appreciate the opportunity to add to the comments made by

our Chair.

The Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

T. Halford: We have two classes from my riding. From Star of the Sea School, we

have grade 5 classes led by Mr. Dennis Pasta. They were in here for question

period, and they are now outside. And now we have the grade 5 class from Ms.

Wynne’s class.

I hope the House makes them welcome. I’m going to go talk to them in a

couple of minutes.

Thanks for coming, guys.

I know they’re tired from the Canucks game last night, so well rested

today. I appreciate them being here today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can I seek leave to make a quick introduction?

The Speaker: Absolutely.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you.

Because my friend just made the introduction, I also see Coun.

Jennifer Johal, a city councillor of Delta, here with the group. I guess one

of Jennifer’s children goes to the school. I want to welcome Coun. Jennifer

Johal to this House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Motion 31 on the order paper.

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

23, Anti-Racism Act.

In Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 31 — TIME ALLOTMENT FOR

FAREWELL ADDRESSES BY

RETIRING MLA s

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 31 standing in my name on the order

paper.

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

practices of the House, the first 90 minutes of Orders of the Day at the

afternoon sitting on Thursday, May 9, 2024, be allotted for Members not

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

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

to ten minutes per Member.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of Motion 31 on the order

paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading of Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

ACT

M. Dykeman: I move that Bill Pr401, intituled Vancouver Foundation Act, be now

read a second time.

The Vancouver Foundation Act has been amended a number of times

since it was first established in 1950, and the bill under consideration

today would replace the existing act.

The new act continues the corporation as a registered charity,

grants its legal capacity and provides for changes relating to its

administration, including the governance structure of the board of

directors.

As reported to this House on May 8, the Select Standing Committee

on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills considered the bill and heard submissions from the

applicant.

Following its deliberations, the committee reported that the

preamble to the bill proved to its satisfaction and recommended that the

bill proceed as presented.

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

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman: By leave, I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Act, read a second time and referred

to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL P r 401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill

Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Act.

Clauses 1 to 27 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

M. Dykeman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:17 a.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL P r 401 — VANCOUVER FOUNDATION

ACT

Bill Pr401, Vancouver Foundation Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 29 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 29 — AMENDMENT TO STANDING

ORDERS FOR PRIVATE

MEMBERS’ TIME

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 29 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[That, effective September 9, 2024, the Standing Orders of the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia be amended:

1. By deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the

underlined text under the heading “Monday 10 a.m. to 12 noon

( Private Members’ Time )”

in Standing Order 25 to give Public Bills in the Hands of Private

Members and Private Members’ motions equal precedence in the order

of business on Monday mornings:

Monday

10 a.m. to 12 noon

( Private Members’

Time )

Private Members’ Statements (10 a.m.)

Public Bills in the

Hands of Private Members and Private Members’ Motions

Public Bills in the Hands of Private

Members

Private Bills

Public Bills and Orders and

Government Motions on Notice

No division, on Orders of the Day, will be taken in the House or in

Committee of the Whole during Private Members’ Time, but where a

division is requested, it will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to

the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House on the Monday,

unless otherwise ordered.

2. By replacing Standing Order 25A with the

following:

Private Members’ Statements.

25A.

(1) The time allocated for Private

Members’ statements shall not exceed 30 minutes, and the time for each

statement shall be limited to 5 minutes.

(2) Party Whips shall confer to settle the names of the

Private Members who will be recognized for “Private Members’ Statements”

for the following Monday and shall advise the Speaker by noon on the

Thursday prior as to who has been selected, together with the topic of

the statement.

(3) Private Members’ statements shall not be subject to

amendment, adjournment or vote.

(4) Statements under this Standing Order:

(

a) shall be confined to one matter;

(

b) shall not revive discussion on a matter which has

been discussed in the same Session;

(

c) shall not anticipate a matter which has been

previously appointed for consideration by the House, in respect to which

a notice of motion has been previously given and not

withdrawn;

(

d) shall not raise a question of

privilege.

3. By adding the underlined text to Standing Order

27:

Precedence.

(1) All items standing on the Orders of the Day, other than

Government orders and Second Reading of Public Bills in the Hands of

Private Members and Private Members’ motions , shall be taken up

according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order

Paper.

Government orders.

(2) Whenever Government business has precedence, Government

orders may be called in such sequence as the Government thinks fit, and

the Government may place Government orders at the head of the list on

every sitting except Monday morning.

Urgent Government business.

(3) Notwithstanding Standing Orders 25, 25A and 27 (2), urgent

Government business may, with the consent of the Speaker, be considered

on Monday morning, and given priority over any other business.

Private Members’ business.

(4) During Private Members’ Time, Private Members’ business

shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned on the Order

Paper. Second Reading of Public Bills in the Hands of Private

Members and Private Members’ motions shall be taken up according to

the precedence established by a draw of Private

Members.

4. By adding a new Standing Order 27A as follows:

Placement for Private Members’ Business

Draw for assigned placements for Private Members’

business.

27A.

(1) At the earliest opportunity in

a new Parliament, the Clerk of the House shall conduct a draw to

establish the assigned placement of Private Members to propose business

for the duration of that Parliament.

Exchanging or withdrawing place.

(2) A Member may exchange their placement with another Member

or withdraw their place by providing the Clerk of the House with written

notice of their intention to this effect.

List to be appended to the Order Paper.

(3) A list of assigned placements of Members to present

Private Members’ business shall be appended to the Order Paper.

New Private Members.

(4) A new Private Member shall be assigned to the bottom of

the list for the order of placement for Private Members’ business. If

more than one Private Member is to be added at the same time, the Clerk

of the House shall conduct a draw.

Public Bill or motion ruled out of order.

(5) A Private Member who has a Public Bill or motion standing

in their name ruled out of order by the Speaker shall be added to the

bottom of the placement list for Private Members’ business.

5. By adding a new Standing Order 27B as follows:

Reinstatement of Private Members’ business.

27B. At the beginning of the second or

subsequent Session of a Parliament, all items of Private Members’

business that were listed on the Order Paper during the previous Session

shall be reinstated on the Order Paper to their last stage of

consideration at the time of prorogation, maintaining their order of

precedence.

6. In Standing Order 45A,

a. by striking the phrase “Public Bills in the Hands of

Private Members” in the heading of

Schedule 3,

b. by renumbering

Schedule 4 as

Schedule 8 and adding the

following text as new

Schedule 4:

SCHEDULE 4

IN THE HOUSE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ TIME

Private Members’ Motions

(

i) Mover — 5 minutes

(ii) Any other Member — 5 minutes

(iii) Mover in reply to close debate — 5

minutes

Time limit for Private Members’ motions debate.

(1) Debate on a Private Member’s motion shall not exceed 75

minutes.

Question to be put.

(2) At 75 minutes, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings

and forthwith put any question necessary to dispose of the main

question.

c. by renumbering

Schedule 5 as

Schedule 9 and adding the

following text as new

Schedule 5:

SCHEDULE 5

IN THE HOUSE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ TIME

Public Bills in the Hands of Private

Members

(Second Reading and Amendments)

(

i) Mover — 10 minutes

(ii) Any other Member — 10 minutes

(iii) Mover in reply to close debate — 5

minutes

Time limit for Second Reading debate.

(1) Second Reading debate on a Public Bill in the Hands of a

Private Member shall not exceed 75 minutes. A Second Reading debate may

be adjourned and hold precedence for continuation of Second Reading

debate at the next Private Members’ Time.

Question to be put.

(2) At 75 minutes, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings

and forthwith put any question necessary to dispose of the main

question.

d. by renumbering

Schedule 6 as

Schedule 10 and adding the

following text as

Schedule 6:

SCHEDULE 6

IN THE HOUSE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ TIME

Public Bills in the Hands of Private

Members

(Report)

(

i) Each Member — 3 minutes

Time limit for Report Stage debate.

(1) Report Stage debate on a Public Bill in the Hands of a

Private Member shall not exceed 15 minutes.

Question to be put.

(2) At 15 minutes, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings

and forthwith put any question necessary to dispose of the main

question.

e. by adding the following text as new

Schedule 7:

SCHEDULE 7

IN THE HOUSE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ TIME

Public Bills in the Hands of Private

Members

(Third Reading and Amendments)

(

i) Mover — 5 minutes

(ii) Any other Member — 5 minutes

(iii) Mover in reply to close debate — 2

minutes

Time limit for Third Reading debate.

(1) Third Reading debate on a Public Bill in the Hands of a

Private Member shall not exceed 20 minutes.

Question to be put.

(2) At 20 minutes, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings

and forthwith put any question necessary to dispose of the main

question.

7. In Standing Order 68 (1),

a. by adding to the list of Select Standing Committees a

new Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private

Mem­bers’ Bills,

b. by renaming the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamen­tary

Reform, Ethical Conduct and Standing Orders, and

c. reordering the list of Select Standing Committees in

alphabetical order.

8. By adding a new Standing Order 84A as follows:

Private Members’ Bills to be committed to Select Standing

Committee.

84A.

(1) When a Public Bill in the

Hands of a Private Member has received Second Reading, it shall stand

committed to the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private

Members’ Bills.

(2) The Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private

Members’ Bills shall, within 30 sitting days of the Bill’s committal to

the Committee, report the Bill back to the House with or without

amendment.

(3) The Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private

Members’ Bills shall be appointed for the life of a Parliament and may

continue consideration of any committed Bill, without interruption

following prorogation.

9. In Standing Order 71, by striking the words “Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills” and

replacing them with “Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and

Private Members’ Bills”.

10. In Standing Order 105, by striking the words

“Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and

Members’ Services” and replacing them with “Select Stand­ing

Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills”.

11. In Appendix B — Private Bills, by striking the

words “Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills” and replacing them with “Select

Stand­ing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’

Bills”. ]

I want to make a few comments, if I can, for the young ones that

are leaving and folks that are watching. Sometimes you see in this

place, maybe, a debate, and it looks adversarial, but there’s a lot of

time in here where we actually get along and work well together. This is

an example of this.

I want to thank the committee members that worked together to come

forward and bring forward recommendations about how we strengthen our

democracy, how we create more opportunities for people who are elected

from different parts of this province to be able to bring

impor­tant issues, important bills forward for debate in this

place. It is, I think, one of the most significant changes to how this

place operates that we’ve seen in a long time, and it’s possible because

of the collaboration that we had from all members of this

chamber.

I want to thank the Premier in particular for hearing from our

caucus and hearing from them clearly that we need to reform how Monday

mornings happen. I know my colleague the House Leader across the way had

similar conversations with his caucus, and I know the House Leader of

the Third Party had similar views. This again is an example of how we

can come together to ensure that future parliaments, future members of

this place, can represent their communities in a better way. I want to

thank them for all their work.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. Babchuk: I’m happy to stand up today…. No, actually, I’m really excited to

stand up today to talk about this historic moment in our Legislature and

recognizing the magnitude that these changes are going to bring. We

don’t often see changes in this chamber. I am delighted that we’re

having a discussion on the floor today.

On February 27, 2023, this Legislative Assembly agreed that the

Special Committee to Review Private Members’ Business be appointed and

empowered to examine the current use of time for private members’

business by this Legislature, to also look at other parliamentary

jurisdictions in Canada and to make recommendations on possible

improvements of private members’ business, specifically around private

members’ motions and private members’ bills.

The committee was given the powers of a select standing committee.

The committee was to report out by October 5, 2023. During that

period of adjournment, the committee met in person and virtually to

deliberate, prepare and compose a report with 13

recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the current use of private members’ time

consists of two hours Monday morning, and the special committee’s

mandate was to stay inside that time frame. Monday mornings are

currently broken into two sessions: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. for private

members’ statements, and 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. for private members’

motions. The committee found, through discussions and consultations with

their caucuses, that this practice no longer fit the needs of private

members, as it wasn’t allowing for participation in the legislative

process. It was also not meeting the needs of members to represent their

constituents, enhance transparency and elevate electoral district

issues.

Current private members’ statements currently consist of a

seven-five-three model, where a member standing up a statement speaks

for seven minutes, a member opposed responds for five minutes, and the

originating member rebuts for three minutes. This practice is felt to be

antiquated and didn’t achieve any democratic transparency or

communicative value to members.

The second hour for private members was felt to be a bit better.

It did offer some opportunity for debate but still did not allow members

to participate in the process of creating legislation. Mr. Speaker, as

you know, private members’ bills are infrequently considered in this

chamber, and only six have received royal assent since 2001.

The special committee, in its October 2023 report, proposed the

three recommendations to reshape private members’ time, prioritizing

increased equity and participation. As this is on the floor today, I am

confident it will pass, and these changes will commence after the 2024

provincial general election.

Recommended changes to private members’ statements would be

limited to 30 minutes, featuring structural changes and eliminating the

reply portion of debate. Each statement would be restricted to five

minutes and only one topic, applying rules similar to the two-minute

statements prior to question period.

Recommendations on private members’ bills and motions start with a

lottery system overseen by the Clerk that would determine the order of

private members’ business. All private members in the Legislature would

be eligible in this lottery. Once selected, a member can either do a

motion or a private member’s bill. These motions or bills would have the

question put at every stage, rather than adjourning debate without

resolution, as happens in our current system.

If private members’ proposed motions debates are limited to 75

minutes, each member has five minutes to speak, with the question put

afterwards. If debates do not conclude within 75 minutes, the House

proceeds to the next item on the list. For private members’ bills, under

the new approach, the Speaker decides admissibility before second

reading, and stages are time-limited, ensuring priority and movement on

the order paper.

Subsequently a new select standing committee for pri­vate

members’ bills will exist to deal with legislation at the Committee of

the Whole stage so that we are not taking away from government business.

Similarly to the motions, at each stage, the question will be put,

making decisions rather than adjourning debate without

resolutions.

I would like to emphasize that this is a historic moment in our

Legislature, as we haven’t seen significant change to the standing

orders for private members’ time since the 1980s.

[11:25 a.m.]

I think we can all agree that there has been substantial change in

the way we live our day-to-day lives, in how we communicate and what our

constituents’ expectations are in the role and how we represent them.

It’s now time for that to be reflected inside this institution.

Improving members’ abilities to represent their constituencies and

provide greater transparency is good governance and can only add value

and confidence in our democratic system.

I’m very happy that this is on the floor today. I was honoured to

be asked to chair the Special Committee to Review Private Members’

Business, as this was a new experience for me and one that I’ve taken

many lessons from. It has also allowed me to participate in a systemic

change that is near and dear to my heart. I feel grateful to be part of

the committee that had great discussion and that ended up coming to

consensus.

I’d like to thank the Premier, as well, for his leadership, his

openness to hearing from caucus on this and his openness to looking at

procedural reform.

I’d also like to thank the members of the committee — the member

for Maple Ridge–Mission, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, the member

for Vancouver-Langara, the member for Courtenay-Comox, the member for

Saanich North and the Islands, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan,

the member for Surrey-Panorama, the member for Fraser-Nicola and

especially the Deputy Chair, the member for Abbotsford West — for their

contributions and positive spirit of collaboration. When we work

together, things get done.

J. Tegart: I’d like to echo the words of the speaker before me. It certainly

was an interesting committee to be a part of and to have conversation

about something as basic as democracy. How do we make the work in this

place more relevant to the members and also to the public?

It was an honour to serve on a committee that undertook to improve

and expand opportunities for private members. For those of you in the

public, private members are members that are not part of the cabinet.

Often, private members feel that their input is limited. It was up to

this committee to take a look at those concerns and to put forward

recommendations to this House.

We looked at how to make this place work better for all members

and also for the public. There is a sense, when a bill comes on the

floor from a private member, and it’s passed in first reading or second

reading, and people are in the public, watching…. Their understanding is

that it has been passed. Often, private members’ bills die on the order

papers. People don’t understand that.

It’s up to us to make sure that people understand the processes

and also that they work for private members. These transformative

changes will ensure that all members have the opportunity to have their

voices heard and pro­vide a more meaningful use of Monday morning

private members’ time.

I, too, want to thank the support we got from the Parliamentary

Committees Office and also the committee members. People came open,

ready to discuss change, ready to debate change. I think that the report

reflects the diversity of that group. It doesn’t matter whether you’re

in government or opposition or a third or fourth party. I think good

work was done by all. Thank you very much. I look forward to supporting

the motion, and I look forward to implementing this incredible change

that will make such a difference for private members in this

place.

A. Olsen: I’m very happy to be standing in support of this motion. I think

British Columbians know that the political party I represent has often

talked about proportional representation, and it has been tied with

democratic reform. When I talk to people about democratic reform, I

often say that it’s more than just proportional representation. It’s

more than just the electoral event that happens once every four years

that populates the seats and the desks in this Legislative

Assembly.

[11:30 a.m.]

It is also the way this House operates, where the power resides,

where the control of the agenda exists and the access that members have,

when they get elected here, to be able to participate in all the ways

that a member should be able to participate. This isn’t to diminish,

necessarily, the important role our executive council and the cabinet

ministers play. It is to elevate the members who are not chosen to be in

the cabinet, in that executive council.

It is to ensure that government backbenchers, members of the

official opposition, members of the other parties, independent members,

have a way to be able to advance public policy measures that are

important to their constituents. When they propose them, as the member

who spoke previously said, the public is led to believe that when we put

a private member’s bill on the order paper, it’s going to follow the

natural succession of a bill. That’s not how this system has operated in

British Columbia.

This has been a project, a conversation, perhaps, that started

with my colleague, who is the former House Leader of the Third Party,

the member for Cowichan Valley, with her counterpart at the time, the

member for Port Coquitlam. As I’ve had the fortune to be the Third Party

House Leader, this work continued, these conversations continued. I

think there wasn’t a meeting that passed with the Government House

Leader where I wasn’t raising some form of a discussion around advancing

a reform of private members’ time.

I think what we see here is the work that happens outside of

question period. It’s the collaborative work that happens. It’s the

space that I often talk about on committees where the most productive,

the most rewarding work happens in the Legislative Assembly. I think

that that’s probably where these conversations can move to in the

future: how do we elevate those spaces that produce those very

productive and constructive relationships?

I think it’s important this House be constantly recommitting

itself to the democracy and ensuring that we’re thickening democracy,

say, perhaps making it more resilient. As we see democracies around the

world fragile and in trouble, it’s important that the members that are

elected here feel that they can be improving their democracy, feel that

they can be reforming democracy.

While we continue to work for proportional representation, so that

the actual votes of British Columbians are reflected in our parliaments,

the work doesn’t stop there, nor does it need to end there. We can

continue to have conversations about how to improve our standing orders,

and this is one example of that.

I hope to have the opportunity to continue and to have a private

member’s bill or a motion, should I get the opportunity to do it, post

the election next fall. Should I draw an early number to have it done

sooner than later, I look forward to the opportunity to provide

something for the debate of this House in that form.

With that, I raise my hands to the government. I raise my hands to

the Chair, the Deputy Chair and to all my colleagues on both sides of

this House who showed British Columbians that we can work in a

collaborative way. This work is the production of that.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

The Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of Motion 29 on the order

paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 25, Haida Nation

Recognition Amendment Act.

[11:35 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 11:36 a.m.

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 25,

Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 2 (continued) .

M. Lee: Good to be back, engaged with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation on this very important Bill 25. We know this is an

amendment to the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself, that at the end of

the last session in May 2023, we had, by my recollection, about 45

minutes on time allocation to deal with that important bill.

When I look back at the Hansard transcript in the time I

had, the minister had said, in reference to the act that we’re now

amending, this was a first step to have the recognition of the Council

of the Haida Nation, that it’s going to be redefined through other

governance arrangements that are contemplated in the framework

agreement, and that this is an incremental step along the

way.

Again, there continues to be reference to incremental steps. I

have been of the view, of course, that the nature of Bill 25 is more

than just an incremental step. It’s a fundamental change, as we’ve

talked about, recognizing Aboriginal title to coexist with fee simple

interests and private property rights and the uncertainty around that

structure.

The minister went on to say: “I think it is important because it

is providing” — that is, this act that we’re amend­ing under Bill

25 — “a restructuring of our relationship with the Haida Nation. I think

that’s, at bottom, what we are trying to do through this incremental

step. There will be more to come.”

This is the area I wanted to point out: at the time a year ago, we

were standing in this chamber in the dying days of that legislative

session, and here we are standing here in this chamber in the dying days

of this legislative session, with only 4½ days to go. You’ve heard our

points, Madam Chair, in the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself

calling for a pause before the agreement was entered into and this bill

to be made an exposure bill.

Having said that, in the government coming forward with the Haida

Nation Recognition Act itself a year ago, the minister said this:

“Discussion on title is, of course, going to be something that we’ll

have to continue, as we’re trying to resolve a relationship which

started with litigation. But we cannot continue, the Haida have told us,

with an Indian Act band or two bands. We cannot continue with a Society

Act created under B.C. law.… The Haida have insisted, properly, that we

redefine and reconstruct that relationship. This bill is a step along

the journey to do just that.”

The definition and the reference that is covered in the Haida

Nation Recognition Act is that the government of British Columbia

recognizes that the Haida Nation has inherent rights of governance and

self-determination.

[11:40 a.m.]

We had that discussion in the bill debate last time around this

bill, and we know that in clause 2 of Bill 25, the new part that’s being

added relating to Aboriginal title is being added to the governance

section, which is covered in the recognition act itself.

Under

section 4, perhaps I could ask for clarity in terms of where

this amendment is dropping, so to speak, into the Haida Nation

Recognition Act. Could the minister responsible here clarify?

I’m reading the act against Bill 25. “The following

Part is added

after

section 4,” which means, just to clarify, that

part 1 is entitled

“Governance” over sections 1 to 4 of the act, and

part 2 will be a new

part of the act entitled “Lands,” and the “Aboriginal Title” matter is

to follow.

Can I just get the minister to confirm that that’s the structure

of this amendment?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for the

question.

I want to, perhaps, just say how pleased we are to be diving back

into our discussions on clause-by-clause review of this bill. For the

record, I will note we moved into committee stage on May 1. In that

time, we have spent eight hours and 22 minutes in committee discussions.

To date, we have gone through clause 1 discussions of the bill. For the

record, I will note that clause 1 merely adds a heading to the Haida

Nation Recognition Act — namely,

part 1, “Governance.”

During the clause 1 discussions, the opposition asked quite a

range and a number of questions, including some pertaining to provisions

under other sections of the bill, specifically clauses 2 and 3, which I

hope we can get to.

After eight hours and 22 minutes, we moved to clause 2, where we

are now. We haven’t yet directly discussed the substance of the bill in

the over eight hours we’ve spent together. So I appreciate the member

diving into the specifics of the bill and asking a question on clause

I think the question is: does

part 1 deal with governance, and is

part 2 intended to deal with lands? I can confirm that is the

case.

M. Lee: I know that the minister, in reading that prepared statement,

understands the context in which we’ve been discussing this bill, as

I’ve been minded to speak to. I know that members of the Council of the

Haida Nation and First Nations leadership in this province are observing

and monitoring, some physically in the chamber, in the gallery, some

online.

The minister may want to refer to the fact that there have been

eight hours and 35 minutes of review on this bill to date. The minister

well knows that it has been the view of the Leader of the Official

Opposition and the B.C. United official opposition caucus that this is a

fundamental change. This is more than just an incremental

step.

We called for a pause back on March 22, before the agreement was

entered into. When the bill came forward and landed in the House, in

this chamber, on April 22…. On April 24, we called for this bill to be

made an exposure bill because it needs the time and the

consideration.

I appreciate the fact that the minister has been patient to enable

the discussion that we’ve been having. But the minister well knows, of

course, that the underlying point about the bill is the agreement

itself, the Rising Tide agreement, the agreement that was entered into

on April 14.

We spent, I don’t know, 30 or 45 minutes talking about the fact

that the agreement itself is not even in effect. It’s not even binding

right now. This government is bringing forward legislation in Bill 25 on

the basis of a non-binding agreement. It hasn’t come into effect. The

party still needs to determine when it’s going to come into effect in

the summer.

This is just one point. Government has indicated that they’re not

prepared to consider any amendments to the agreement itself, nation to

nation, between the Haida Nation and the province of British Columbia.

But they are open to consider reasoned amendments.

[11:45 a.m.]

Obviously in the role that I play, I need to understand the

underpinnings of the bill and, I would say, the underpinnings of the

act. We had 45 minutes a year ago on the Haida Nation Recognition Act

itself, 45 minutes before this government brought closure — in effect, a

time allo­cation to that bill.

Just like they did with the Judicial Review Procedure Act. No

questions asked, and that held First Nations accountable for their

decisions under

section 7 agreements under DRIPA.

This is the way this government makes change. They say it’s

incremental, but it’s not. That’s the reason why we called for a pause.

That’s the reason why we called for this bill to be an exposure bill.

The minister may want to stand in this House and now say, for what this

is a four-clause bill, that we need to have the front-end

discussion.

When we’re talking about Aboriginal title, the minister had said,

when I asked the questions on the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself,

when the Haida Nation has inherent rights of governance and

self-determination…. This is

an act, by the way, despite the fact that

we only had 45 minutes to debate, the official opposition did vote in

favour of this bill. I spoke in favour of the act itself, to recognize

the 50-year history of the Council of the Haida Nation through its

constitution. Even with that, the minister was not able to define what

the inherent right of governance and self-determination meant for the

Haida Nation.

He said that that would be “left, in terms of the determination of

the scope of these rights of governance and self-determination, to

negotiations.”

Here we are, a year later. This is the result: an agreement that

now speaks to title, but also has a two-year transition period. This is

something else that we spent a portion of my eight hours with this

minister talking about, which is this two-year transition period, which

is: “We’ll figure out the details later.”

I would have thought, as the Premier of this province has been

trumpeting, this is a template agreement to recognize title in our

province. It’s a new model. Well, let’s understand what this new model

is.

In order for this template, this new model of agreement of title,

recognition of 100 percent of a title assertion, for this particular

nation as it might be used by other nations in this province, will the

government need to recognize that nation first through a recognition act

of governance, as was done a year ago with the Haida Nation?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for the

question.

Yeah, there are indeed four clauses in the bill, but some of them

are more substantive than others. I agree.

The member noted his call for a pause. We had, in those eight

hours and 22 minutes, considerable discussion on that suggestion, that

recommendation by the member opposite. My understanding of

clause-by-clause is that we are to examine the bill. I, of course, said

in those earlier conversations, the eight hours and 22 minutes to which

I referred, that it was entirely appropriate to discuss the agreement,

which we have done.

I also confirmed that, of course, as in any context, the

government is open to reasoned amendments on any bill before the House.

That is, of course, one of the purposes of clause-by-clause. So I

confirmed that.

I want to acknowledge and thank the member for leading his

colleagues to be able to support the bill, the Haida Nation Recognition

Act, that was before us last fall. I appreciate that very much. I

continue to hope, just as in the context of UNDRIP legislation and the

historic Declaration Act, that after considerable debate in this House —

I wasn’t here, but of course I’ve read the Hansard — the

opposition will be similarly in a position to support this historic

legislation.

The member used the phrase…. I think he was quoting me in the

notion of it. “Incremental steps” was the phrase that is discussed. I

can report to the member that in today’s National , the Canadian

Bar Association journal, just released this morning, they comment as

follows on this legislation: “The Haida reconciliation approach…assumes

an ongoing, dynamic relationship between the parties. And it will be

subject to ongoing modification and adjustment through the coming

decades, or even centuries.” I think that confirms the incremental

nature of what I tried to indicate in earlier comments to the

member.

I should say that…. The member’s specific question was: are we

going to need to do a recognition of every First Nation’s governance as

legislation of this kind may come forward in the future? The member is

well aware, as shadow minister for Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, of the diversity of First Nations in our province. The

200-plus First Nations are at different stages and have different forms

of governance, so I can’t say that that would be the case.

Indeed, the member will be aware that there are some nations that

have strong self-government arrangements already in place. Westbank,

shíshálh are two examples that come to mind. So there is not going to be

a consistent approach, nor should there be, given the nature of

Indigenous governance in our province.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and

seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Ralston moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — ANTI-RACISM

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 23;

H. Yao in the chair.

The committee met at 11:24 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill

23, Anti-Racism Act, to order. We are currently on clause 20. There

is an amendment presented by the member for Richmond North

Centre.

On clause 20 (continued) .

On the amendment (continued) .

T. Wat: It seems there has been a significant misunderstanding or perhaps

a reluctance to grasp the real purpose behind my proposed amendment.

This isn’t just another piece of bureaucratic amendment. This is an

essential protection for our Indigenous and racialized

communities.

[11:25 a.m.]

Unfortunately, a small error regarding the term “public service”

in our text caused some confusion with my amendment to clause 14

yesterday, obscuring the true intent of my proposal. Let me make it

clear. The concerns of racialized individuals in our community are not

theoretical.

They are real and painful. These people often feel like they are

not hired for their skills but as mere numbers filling quotas or

targets. This wrong will leads to discrimination and undermines their

real achievements, their skill set, their talents and their

experience.

Yesterday the minister across remarked: “Quite frankly, I don’t

think the amendment is even needed, because what it’s referring to is

the Public Service Act, which already has processes in place for people

to be hired based on their merits. So it doesn’t actually do anything

different than what the legislation has.”

This comment misses the point and, at the same time, gives

validity to my amendment. It overlooks the daily challenges of

misinformation and prejudice that our communities face. It ignores the

fear among my constituents that they are viewed only as part of a

diversity count.

If Bill 23 truly aims to remedy significant issues such as

systemic racism…. The minister must know how much every word in the

legislation needs to be thoroughly examined so it’s not causing more

harm to racialized communities and Indigenous peoples.

If the legislation, indeed, intends to show that hiring is based

on merit, then making this explicit in the wording should not be

controversial. It should be a welcome clarification to prevent

misunderstanding and misuse. Opposing such clarity leaves room for

harmful stereotypes to thrive and for the real concern of our people to

be ignored.

Why, then, should we hesitate to strengthen this legislation to

clearly reassure our communities? Why allow any space for doubt or the

spread of toxic narratives by those intent on spreading hate?

Our responsibility is profound, to carry forward our intention and

protect the rights of all our citizens. Failing to properly address this

issue risks not only the well-being of our constituents but also the

integrity of the public institutions.

I stand here urging my colleagues to rise above rou­tine

bureaucracy. Listen to the voices of those we serve. They deserve our

respect and decisive action. They deserve laws that are clear and that

protect everyone without question.

I also must express my profound disappointment and the deep

disrespect I felt during yesterday’s proceeding in this House. It is

crucial to address a particular distressing accusation made against me.

The House Leader of the government claimed I “perpetuate the stereotype

that Indigenous people don’t have the skills and experience to work in

government.”

Let me be absolutely clear. I never said such a thing. I do not

believe such a thing. I’m deeply troubled and offended that this

inference was made, seemingly not in good conscience.

[11:30 a.m.]

I acknowledge there were technical mistakes in the amendment I

proposed. However, rather than receiving the benefit of the doubt or

guidance on how to correct these errors, I was abruptly told to move on

and denied the opportunity to clarify my intentions. The Chair did not

allow me to explain, and the House Leader across took it upon himself to

misconstrue my intention and put words in my mouth — words that carry

some real implications that I categorically reject.

This misrepresentation was not only hurtful but indicative of what

brought the issue within the proceedings. My queries regarding various

clauses of the bill remain unanswered. For much of the day, repeatedly

the House Leader would defer, stating uncertainty like, “We don’t know

yet,” without even consulting ministry aides for clarity.

I am glad the Attorney General is here today. I was going to say

that if the members of the House cannot engage respectfully and

constructively and not be prepared to provide an answer, then the

Attorney General should be brought back. I’m glad that I see the

Attorney General here today. I hope that the Attorney General will

provide clarity that was sorely missing in yesterday’s

discussions.

However, and moreover, despite assurances of respect by the House

Leader on multiple occasions, I was not shown the courtesy expected in

this House. My struggle to articulate my frustrations was exacerbated by

indifference rather than understanding.

If the voices of British Columbians needing answers are to be

ignored, then we must ask ourselves: what is the purpose of even

gathering here? How are we to serve those who have entrusted us with

their representation?

This is a call for a higher standard of conduct and dialogue

within these walls. We owe it to our constituents and to the integrity

of this legislative body.

R. Merrifield: I want to address some of what hap­pened. I apologize to the

Attorney, who wasn’t necessarily here for all of the conversation. I’ll

actually use this as an example of what happens when things are not

clear, when assumptions are made on intention, when assumptions are made

on belief rather than on surety, on clarity, on definition, on things

that are very straightforward and asserted.

The amendment that has been proposed by my colleague is one which

is attempting, and all of the amendments so far have been attempting to

introduce more clarity, have been attempting to add more definition,

have been attempting to add the aspects that will provide the

protections and have us actually achieve what I think everyone wants in,

I guess, the title of the bill, which is anti-racism.

The amendment is more than just a few lines of additional

language. The assumption that was made in the previous attempt at the

amendment actually proved the amendment’s point, in some ways. The

assumption made was that my colleague was in some way insinuating that

there was not merit there.

[11:35 a.m.]

That assumption is made when there isn’t the clear defined

assertion that it was based on merit and other aspects. I think we need

to, as we are implementing this bill and these measures, look at and be

really mindful of the potential unintended consequences and aim to

create a system that is fair and effective in promoting not just

diversity but in actually promoting equality, in saying these are

amazing individuals that should be welcomed and engaged and believed in

fairly and equally.

The amendment that we’re proposing today aims to refine this bill

further. It emphasizes that hiring should be based on both merit and the

imperative to address the racial inequities and disparities. And by

including merit as a core criterion, we acknowledge that the importance

of skills and experience and qualifications in selecting the best

candidates is there. It takes away the very misunderstanding that took

place in yesterday’s exchange on the first amendment, the accusation

that in some way, there would be a belief that a certain group of

racialized individuals would somehow be unfairly put into positions.

We’re actually trying to avoid that. The wording ensures that everyone,

all of our agencies, are staffed with competent individuals who are

equipped to serve the public efficiently and effectively and, in doing

so, actually moves the cause of diversity forward in a better

way.

By considering racialization, we address the historical and

systemic barriers that have prevented incredibly talented individuals

from racialized communities from accessing opportunities in the public

sector. But combining the two aspects of merit and racialization creates

a balanced approach that not only values qualifications and capabilities

but also actively works to dismantle racial inequities that we know are

within our society. So we’re actually advocating for this dual focus to

bolster and make stronger the cause of dismantling these racial

inequities.

I understand this. I am a female that has worked incredibly hard

in a male-dominated industry to get to where I am, overcoming a lot of

belief as to why I’m around a boardroom table as the only female, or why

I happen to be appointed to that board that I’m on, or why I’ve been

chosen for a particular award. But it’s not just about women. In fact,

women are never mentioned anywhere in this bill. This is just about

racial diversity.

Imagine a talented young person from an underrepresented racial

community who has worked tirelessly to overcome numerous obstacles and

achieve academic and professional success. Now imagine that individual,

despite their qualifications, still facing stigma by a lack of

understanding or a lack of belief that they were chosen on that merit.

Why not include language that can backstop this entire process and say,

no, no, no, it was merit and diver­sity that they were chosen

on.

We don’t want to perpetuate harmful stereotypes. In fact, just the

opposite. We are working to undo those harmful stereotypes that

individuals from racialized communities have absolutely had to work

against. The amendment seeks to prevent the stigmas by clearly stating

that all hires are based on both merit and understanding of the systemic

barriers that they’ve overcome.

By implementing this amendment that my colleague has put forward,

we send a powerful message that our government is committed to

excellence and equity. We’re saying that we value the contributions of

all of our members of society and that we’re willing to take concrete

steps to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to contribute to our

public service.

Furthermore, this amendment will help to eradicate the stigma

associated with affirmative action policies. By explicitly stating that

hiring is based on merit in addition to addressing racialization, we can

dispel the misconception that candidates from racialized communities are

hired solely based on their race.

[11:40 a.m.]

It makes it clear that these individuals are recognized for their

exceptional skills and qualifications, alongside the understanding of

the additional hurdles that they’ve overcome.

This is not language-changing for semantics. It’s about changing

the very culture and fabric of our society and allowing government

agencies to go first. It’s about fostering an environment where

diversity is seen as a strength and where every employee is encouraged

to bring their unique perspectives and experiences to the table. This

cultural shift that we’re asking for and that we want to all see is

going to enhance the effectiveness of our public service, as diverse

teams are proven to be more innovative and better at

problem-solving.

We’re trying to make this just a little bit stronger, and we’re

trying to avoid situations that happened between two legislators

yesterday. Never mind the general public; if two legislators can’t even

believe the best about each other’s intentions, how then can we expect

the rest of society to do that?

We believe that this amendment is going to help us eradicate

stigma, change the culture, not just within our agencies but really lead

the way in changing it amongst our culture and our society, and move us

closer to a just and equitable society. I ask us to stand together and

to support this as a show of support and strength in trying to change

the tide of what we see today in society.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to ask the indulgence of the Chair and the minister.

Because of what we see as a misunderstanding yesterday — and perhaps,

not being given guidance in terms of how to rectify this — I think, in

fair­ness and equity, if we could go back to clause 14. I know and

understand, Mr. Chair, that we’re on 20 right now, but for the

opportunity for my colleague to reintroduce the proposed amendment to

the bill on clause 14.

I know this is maybe a bit unusual, but I would ask the

indulgence. I will leave it in your hands.

The Chair: Members, I’ve been advised that in order for us to consider a

clause 14 amendment, we need first to agree, among the committee, to

stand down the amendment to clause 20.

Hon. N. Sharma: I was not at the committee yesterday. You’ll have to forgive me. I

was in another House with another matter.

I would like some clarity on what we are going to be proposing on

section 14 and what the difference is. Maybe the member could provide

that. This is new to me, but I’m not really sure why we would go

backwards at this stage.

The Chair: Attorney General, how about we note the hour right now? Then

we’ll come back after lunch.

Hon. N. Sharma: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR

GENERAL

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C,

to order. We’re meeting today to consider the budget estimates of

the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,068,431,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Nope.

The Chair: Okay. I’m now going to recognize the member for Kelowna

West.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Chair. It’s good to be here and have a chance to talk a

little bit about something that I’m a little passionate

about.

It has been a very difficult and trying last few years, with the

climate issues that have faced Okanagan grape growers and wineries.

They’re continuing to assess damage in the vineyards at this time. It’s

probably going to be about another month before we have a real

certainty.

There’s a replant program that the Minister of Agriculture has

announced — $23 million dedicated to the vineyard replanting, which I

know myself and the member for Boundary-Similkameen are working hard on.

It’s welcome. We’re looking forward to that getting out.

What I want to ask the minister today is…. A lot of the wineries,

as he knows, don’t have a grape supply this year. Of course, many of

them are in very difficult situations.

I’m wondering if the ministry could confirm the number of people

that were assigned, in the liquor control and licensing branch, to deal

with the transition. It appears to be the only option to convert from

land-based wineries to commercial winery licences in 2023. So the number

of people that are working in that area.

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

I can give a direct answer to the specific. I’ll also talk a

little bit about the broader issue. He and I have talked about this as

well.

There’s obviously the replant program underway. We have been

meeting extensively with grape growers, the wineries themselves, on the

challenges that they’re facing in terms of not just the freeze that

happened this year but what has happened in the last couple of years and

what that means in terms of going forward and in terms of wine sales in

British Columbia and the challenges that they are facing and how we can

mitigate that. This ministry has also been working with the Ministry of

Agriculture on that. So there’s a lot of work that’s

underway.

In terms of the specific, there are 12 people working on that

issue that the member just raised.

B. Stewart: To clarify, 12 people, meaning that’s the current…. Really what

I’m getting at is: what additional resources have been assigned to that

area in the past 12 months?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: For the member, it hasn’t required additional resources. What we

have done is realigned the work of the LDB so that those individuals are

focusing entirely on the issue that the member has raised. It has not

required new people. It has just required an alignment of work — what

the priority is and what the issue is that the wineries are

facing.

B. Stewart: I want to be clear. Of course, as we get closer to when these

wineries, the 461 that are licensed land-based wineries in the province,

are coming up to when they would have grapes coming from their own

vineyards here in British Columbia…. The timelines they’re now…. I guess

they’ve been expecting some sort of direction from government. At this

point, it appears that the only real direction is the change.

I’m kind of wondering, if asked, what types of timelines these

individual wineries will face in terms of conversion, in terms of having

to get access so they can properly import grapes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make a couple of

points.

There’s no backlog right now. It takes about a week to do a

turnaround. Obviously, if we see an increase in that, we will add

additional resources.

On top of that, what I can tell you is…. We also have a proposal

from the Wine Growers association which is currently under consideration

by government.

M. Morris: We’ve had a little bit of wine before we get into the aspects of

policing here. I don’t know whether you need a staff change or

not.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re not driving.

M. Morris: I’ll be going into other policing topics this

afternoon.

Last November the Premier announced an increase of $230 million to

the provincial RCMP budget to add 277 members. I’m wondering whether the

minister can give us an update on where that sits: how many members we

have on the ground now and what the rollout is for the rest.

[11:30 a.m.]

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

knows, it is a three-year program. In the first year, we added 62

members, and this year we are working from a target of 132.

M. Morris: I wondered if the minister could tell us what the priorities are

from the policing perspective, from his office’s perspective, versus the

priorities for the RCMP. I’m sure there are some similarities

there.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Our priorities and the RCMP’s

priorities are aligned. We’re both working from the same page. I can

tell you that the priorities are, I think, the same as what we talked

about last year. They are major crime, B.C. Highway Patrol and rural and

remote provincial detachments.

M. Morris: Of the 62 that have been placed in year 1, how many of the rural

remote detachments…? We have some that are really struggling with the

workload and whatnot out there. How many, and where would these

be?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In that first year, five have gone to rural and remote

detachments.

M. Morris: Which ones?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The five are Anahim Lake, Van­der­hoof, north

district, Golden and the southeast district.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

Anahim. I’m familiar with that. It was in my old district. I know

a lot of the rural and remote communities that are desperate for

additional help also include housing. For the position that went to

Anahim, was there an additional house that was built or provided for the

member that was occupying that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll get the answer, the confirmation answer for the member around

Anahim.

What I can tell you is one of the things we do is one of the

factors, in terms of where officers go. We work with the RCMP because we

want to ensure that, in fact, there is housing in a community. As the

member quite rightly…. I think we both agree that’s of critical

importance. We’ll get that information around Anahim for the

member.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer, and I look forward to the

answer.

There are a number of communities that are suffering from the same

issue. Housing has always been an issue in attracting resources into

these rural and remote communities.

Has the ministry budgeted for additional housing in some of these

remote places like Anahim, for an example, or we’ve got TseK’hene,

Kwadacha, Takla? There are a number of the isolated posts that do

require housing, because there’s none available in the community itself.

Has there been any budget for that?

[11:40 a.m.]

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

We work very closely with the RCMP on this issue of accommodation,

and we do it primarily through the accommodation program charge, which

has the ability to provide capital to construct or purchase housing for

members. Some communities, in fact, do leasing, but, as I said, we work

very