Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

31, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: K. Paddon.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members' gallery this morning is the consul general of the United

States, Mr. James DeHart. Accompanying him is Ana Himelic, a political economic officer

at the consulate.

Consul General DeHart is here on his first official visit to Victoria. Later this

morning the Minister of State for Trade and I will meet with him. This afternoon he

will have lunch with you, Mr. Speaker. Following that, he will meet with the Minister

of Finance and then Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

Would the House please make both our guests feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 3), 2023

Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3),

2023. This bill amends the following statutes: Supreme Court Act, Low Carbon Fuels

Act, Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act,

Residential Tenancy Act, North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Act, Northern

Development Initiative Trust Act, Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Act,

Local Government Act.

This bill also makes consequential amendments to a number of other statutes. I will

be pleased to elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading

of this bill.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: 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 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023, 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)

MARY MILLER

M. Bernier: Mary Miller was born April 30 in Doe River area just north of Rolla, British Columbia,

a small farming community, and she spent pretty much her entire life there. She was

one of the more passionate people that I ever had the pleasure of meeting, and it

came especially with her love and support for the region and for the agricultural

sector that helped develop and grow the Peace region.

When I first was elected as MLA for Peace River South, one of the very first people

to contact me and to meet with me was Mary, with her husband John, who sadly passed

away in 2018. Mary sat across from me, she looked me in the eye, and she said to me:

"Now that you represent me, you'd better be representing the farmers and ranchers

in this area, the same people that helped build this beautiful part of the province."

[10:10 a.m.]

As you can guess, Mary never shied away from expressing her opinions and standing

up for what she believed in.

Mary had a long career as a school teacher in Rolla and was a member of the Rolla

Women's Institute for her entire life. It's probably safe to say that there's no one

who didn't know Mary in that region because of her involvement and support of always

making sure people knew about Rolla and the people who founded that area, like Mary

herself.

After retirement, Mary's next passion turned to her grandkids, helping out and supporting

them in all of their sporting activities. Another passion of Mary's, though, was her

constant battle with the oil and gas sector, reminding them always that they had to

respect the land that the farmers use. But it was always a bit of a joke within her

family, considering all four of her sons worked in the oil and gas sector.

On September 22, 2023, Mary sadly passed away, leaving a huge hole in her family and

in our community. A celebration of Mary's life will be held this Saturday at 2 p.m.

in the Rolla Hall.

I will always cherish all of my time that I've spent with Mary, our meetings and our

little battles, and I send condolences to her family and her friends.

Mary was a force, and she will always be remembered.

INCLUSIVE ACCESS TO

WASHROOM FACILITIES

G. Chow: Today is Halloween. I'm not going to speak about something scary but something that's

interesting and important. I'm going to talk about washrooms, particularly a washroom

in this building, the Legislative Assembly.

Do you know that in the 1990s, there wasn't a single women's washroom on the same

floor as this chamber? There were four washrooms on this floor, but they were all

for men.

Women demanded change, and management finally relented. One men's room was converted

to women's use by shutting down the water sprinkler to the urinals. Plastic flowers

were still in vogue then, so they put them in the urinals to pretty them up. As dust

started to gather on the flowers and the plastic faded with time, the flowers became

unsightly. A more permanent and practical solution was implemented by building a full-height

wooden enclosure around the urinals. This was what I saw when Michelle Mungall, former

MLA for Nelson-Creston, took me for a tour of the women's washroom in the Legislature

back in 2017 when I first got elected.

One memorable incident Michelle told me was that one MLA dropped her cell phone, and

it ended up in the urinal despite having the wooden enclosure, because the enclosure

has a gap on the bottom where it meets the floor. However, on that tour, Michelle

didn't show me the location of the men's room on this floor so then, when former Premier

Christy Clark called a division vote, I almost missed it because I was in the men's

room on the third floor.

Two weeks ago the B.C. building services visited the Legislature and met with MLAs.

Among other topics, they discussed the need for better washroom facilities for construction

workers. They pointed out: "An additional consequential benefit of providing improved

washroom facilities in construction is an increased level of support for underrepresented

groups who might be considering construction trades as a vocation."

Given my experience in washrooms, I wholeheartedly agree.

PAPER PLANES CAFÉ AND

INCLUSIVE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

T. Wat: I rise today to share a truly heartwarming experience I had yesterday, which is a

shining example of the spirit of inclusion and innovation in our great province.

On October 30, I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of Paper Planes Café

at YVR airport in Richmond in my riding. This café is not just another addition to

one of Canada's major airports. It is a ground-breaking initiative that deserves recognition

and celebration. Paper Planes Café is born out of a partnership with the Pacific Autism

Family Network. It showcases the power of collaboration and the commitment to creating

opportunities for everyone in our community regardless of their abilities.

Paper Planes Café is a unique approach to employment and training. Individuals with

diverse abilities are provided with valuable work experience and paid a living wage

while undergoing a six-month training period. This period serves as a launching pad,

allowing PAFN to collaborate with various companies in the community to find these

individuals suitable and fulfilling employment.

[10:15 a.m.]

In a world that is often marked by barriers and limitations, this initiative symbolizes

progress, unity and the limitless potential of every individual. It stands as a pioneer,

not just at YVR airport but as the first of its kind in any Canadian airport.

As British Columbians, we must always work to ensure that no one is left behind and

that everyone has the opportunity to shine in their own unique way. I see how Paper

Planes Café helps achieve this. I hope this example inspires all to do better and

do more for inclusivity in our communities.

I look forward to witnessing the positive impact Paper Planes Café will have on the

lives of the people it serves and the broader community.

HALLOWEEN PUMPKIN EVENT AND

PARKGATE PLAZA IN NORTH VANCOUVER

S. Chant: I will begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking from the unceded territories of the

lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Esquimalt and the Songhees.

I work, live and learn in my beautiful riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, situated

in the unceded territory of the Coast Salish, specifically the Tsleil-Waututh and

Squamish Nations.

When I think of Halloween, I think of pumpkins that become wonderful orange jack-o'-lanterns.

This past Sunday, I had the joy of distributing small pumpkins to young and old people

who were travelling through the plaza at Parkgate mall.

These people were on a variety of quests, all of which could be met within walking

distance of their homes. Some were attending the North Van rec centre where there

were drop-in sports such as badminton and pickleball, access to a fitness gym and

parties being attended by excited kids in costumes. Others came out of the library,

one school-aged girl with so many books that she couldn't carry them on her own. She

proudly pointed out the ones she had chosen for her little sister at home.

There were seniors making their way home with today's groceries to nearby condominiums

who chattered fluently, a father and son duo that arrived from Hong Kong six months

ago and were enchanted by getting free pumpkins.

It was a lovely day, and the nearby coffee shop had customers at all the outdoor tables,

enjoying the crisp autumn sun and catching up on the news of the day or the week.

As I watched kids and their parents choosing the right pumpkin and adding decorations

if they wished, I realized that I felt an overwhelming gratitude that Parkgate, like

many other communities in North Vancouver and British Columbia, has created a safe,

accessible and welcoming intergenerational space for children to play, families to

gather and seniors to meet, a place where everyone is welcome, always.

Have a safe and happy Halloween.

ANTI-SEMITISM AND SUPPORT FOR

JEWISH COMMUNITY

M. Lee: Two weeks ago across party lines, we made speeches in this House to condemn Hamas

for their barbaric and violent terrorist crimes against humanity on October 7.

Throughout the past three weeks, members of the Jewish community have expressed to

me their fears and how they feel betrayed and very alone in the world right now. Thankfully,

many people with platforms, including elected representatives, have gone out of their

way to show them that they are not alone.

I want to recognize one member in particular, across the aisle, the Minister of Advanced

Education, for her unwavering support for Israel and the burden that she carries,

as I acknowledged last Saturday at Beth Israel synagogue in Vancouver.

I've seen the heinous comments, threats and bullying online that she and others have

received. It's why, no matter our partisan stripes, we must all loudly stand behind

those who use this platform for good and show the Jewish community that they are not

I'm deeply troubled by what I've seen recently in schools, on university and college

campuses and on B.C. streets. Hate and anti-Semitism is either being promoted or allowed

to fester without challenge.

Now is the time to push back. Now is the time to support our Jewish friends and neighbours.

We must stand with them and condemn incitement of violence in the rallies that we

continue to see in Vancouver and ensure that the criminal code provisions, including

against both promotion of hatred and anti-Semitism, are enforced.

[10:20 a.m.]

The Jewish community has given us so much in this province. We owe it to them and

to our society to do all we can to stamp out this hate and anti-Semitism and ensure

that no Jewish child is afraid of going to school, no Jewish student is afraid of

attending UBC and no Jewish person anywhere in this province feels unsafe or unwelcome.

Anything less is a failure in our responsibilities as elected representatives in our

province.

HALLOWEEN CELEBRATIONS AND

IMPORTANCE OF PLAY

B. Anderson: First of all, I would like to wish everyone in British Columbia a very happy Halloween.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism, my role is to encourage exploration, learning

and play in a variety of forms. All of us in this room would agree that play is necessary,

an important aspect of cognitive, physical and emotional development for children.

We encourage children to play.

For many adults, play may be perceived as silly, unproductive and time-consuming.

Some may even discourage adults from playing.

For many adults, we can feel boxed in by the expectations and pressures of adulthood,

but let's not take ourselves too seriously. There are a number of benefits to play

for adults, including improved stress management and an improvement in our well-being.

Play offers a reprieve from the chaos and challenges to connect us with a key part

of ourselves that gets lost in the responsibility of adulthood.

People play in different ways. Karaoke sounds like a blast to one person but a nightmare

to another.

Celebrating Halloween is a form of play. So for everyone in British Columbia celebrating

Halloween this year, I hope the experience is safe, sparks joy and improves your overall

well-being.

I would like to thank my colleagues who dressed up as Barbie this year for the best

holiday of the year and our Premier for giving me his blessing to organize the group

caucus Halloween costume again this year, essentially encouraging play. You know what

they say. MLAs that play together, stay together.

Across British Columbia, on this Halloween, let's all embrace play and embark on the

joyful adventure together that celebrates creativity, diversity and inclusion.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX AND

HOME HEATING COSTS

K. Falcon: Life has never been more expensive than under this NDP Premier.

While the NDP runs record-setting inflationary deficits, family budgets are tighter

than ever. People are stretched thin, juggling record-high housing, food and fuel

costs. They deserve a break. Yet instead of providing relief, this Premier is on track

to balloon the carbon tax from $30 a tonne in 2017, when they formed government, to

a crippling $170 a tonne by the end of this decade.

My question to the Premier is straightforward. Will the Premier confirm his plans

to hike the carbon tax to $170 a tonne, as laid out in his own budget?

Hon. D. Eby: I want to thank the member for Nelson-Creston for her two-minute statement and for

help with our Halloween costume this year.

I have to admit I was puzzled. What is the Leader of the Opposition dressed as this

year? It turns out he is dressed as a weathervane.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Shhh. Members, every member must refrain from name-calling, please.

Hon. D. Eby: It's hard to imagine that the same member who rolled out his announcement this morning

rolling back the carbon tax is the same person that said: "I am actually very proud

of the leadership role we've taken on the carbon tax. I think that if you accept that

climate change is an issue, then pricing carbon is absolutely the right way to deal

with it."

Obviously, the member is abandoning that position. I look forward to all the details

of his position.

The member is well aware of the fact that pricing carbon is the right way to deal

with climate change. He has just lost the courage of his convictions.

[10:25 a.m.]

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

K. Falcon: Let's be really clear about something here. It's this Premier who has flip-flopped

on his promise of affordability.

I would remind the Premier that it was his NDP that campaigned against the carbon

tax when it was introduced at $10 a tonne, and then Mr. Premier did a double backflip

to actually now say that they want to increase it to $170 a tonne.

The fact of the matter is that in 2012, while I was Finance Minister, I froze the

carbon tax at $30 a tonne. Subsequent B.C. Liberal governments maintained that freeze

until 2017, when the NDP formed government.

What has happened since then? Well, they've more than doubled the carbon tax. The

Premier's own budget documents show that he plans to triple the carbon tax on home

heating, costing homeowners nearly $900 a year.

My question to the Premier: after already dramatically jacking up this tax, will the

Premier confirm that his next move is to more than triple the carbon tax on home heating?

Hon. D. Eby: The member — how quickly he forgets when he was Finance Minister. When they sat on

this side of the House, a family that earned $100,000 used to pay $7,473 in taxes.

They now pay $4,948. That's a 34 percent net reduction. Families that earn $80,000

a year, a 56 percent net reduction.

The member called removing the tolls a profound public policy mistake. If he gets

back on this side of the House, you know what he's going to do? He's going to reverse

what he called a mistake. He's going to put the tolls back on the bridge.

It'll be the same guy that increased the MSP on families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Members, please calm down.

Hon. D. Eby: Maybe he'll reverse himself on that, too.

But what I can't tell is what this member stands for anymore. He said he supported

the Surrey police transition. Conservatives said they were against it. He reversed

his position.

He voted for the short-term rental legislation. Conservatives said they were against

it. Then he voted against it too.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: He said he supported harm reduction. The Conservatives said they were against it.

He reversed himself again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. D. Eby: One day his caucus says he supports harm reduction. The next day they say he doesn't.

He spent 15 years saying he was proud of the carbon tax, and today he's not.

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

K. Falcon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what leadership looks like. It looks like….

This is the best part.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: You haven't heard the best part yet. Hold your applause for just a few seconds longer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's hear the question, please.

K. Falcon: I'll tell you what leadership looks like, Mr. Speaker. It looks like the Premier of

Saskatchewan, who's fighting for affordability, a Premier who is standing for working

people. No carbon tax on home heating. That's real leadership.

British Columbians cannot afford to pay even more in the midst of a cost-of-living

crisis. Rather than adopting sensible, pragmatic solutions, this Premier doubles down

on yearly hikes that will hammer the final nails in the coffins of affordability here

in British Columbia.

My question to the Premier is a straightforward one. Why won't this Premier give British

Columbians a break from his punishing carbon tax grab?

Hon. D. Eby: I guess the theme of the past couple of weeks has been Liberal leaders facing difficult

poll results flip-flopping on the carbon tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the member is under a lot of pressure from the Conservative Party,

but standing up, after the summer we had, for British Columbia to be a leader on climate

change is an important thing. His abandonment of that under pressure is exactly what's

going to happen if he gets on this side of the House. He will go after British Columbians

again for every little MSP fee and every little toll so he can give tax cuts to the

big corporations and the wealthy 2 percent, who don't need the help.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: You know how I know? Because he's done it before. Now, he has the nerve to stand up

on that side of the House and say that he's on the side of families, when we're the

side that cut taxes for families by up to 50 percent. Give me a break.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The province needs principled leadership. It's hard to stand strong. But I encourage

the member to visit with the member that used to sit here in 2012, because at least

he knew what he stood for. I have no idea what that man stands for.

T. Stone: Yeah, well, other Premiers are standing up, and they're fighting for their citizens.

Take Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario. Here in British Columbia, we have a Premier who

sticks his head in the sand and isn't standing up and doing anything to drive affordability

for British Columbia. That's the issue.

Let's make no mistake about it. This is a provincial carbon tax that this Premier

controls, period. In B.C., middle-class families pay the most in net carbon tax anywhere

in the country.

But it gets worse. Government documents confirm that the NDP's CleanBC plan will actually

shrink the provincial economy by $28 billion, also shrinking family paycheques to

the tune of $11,000 per household per year, a cost which this Premier and this government

have not shared with British Columbians.

What people want is a Premier who stands up and fights for them, instead of this Premier

who refuses to do so. The Premier could start today by removing the NDP's carbon tax

on home heating, plain and simple.

Will the Premier do that today?

Hon. J. Osborne: We know that for 15 years, the B.C. United has enthusiastically supported the carbon

tax. In fact, we've heard the Leader of the Opposition call it his proudest moment

yet.

Now he wants to question this. He wants to abandon the principles. He wants to question

whether the climate crisis is costing people and businesses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Osborne: Instead of helping people do the right thing to fight climate change, to make it more

affordable to do so, he wants to walk back on climate action.

So what are they going to cut? Are they going to cut the $900 that families are receiving

each year through the climate action tax credit? Are they going to cut the millions

of dollars of carbon tax that are invested back into industry to reduce emissions

and increase competitiveness?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Osborne: Are they going to cut the rebates for heat pumps, for electric vehicles, for better

doors and windows, for better insulation for people to make it more affordable to

fight the devastating impacts of climate change?

Our government is going to continue to make progress on our climate targets while

reducing costs for people. That's what British Columbians expect of this government,

and that's exactly what we're going to do.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: The saddest part of all of this is that B.C. used to be a climate leader. This government

has actually relinquished British Columbia's leadership role on the world stage. When

you look at the results, and the results are really what matter, emissions are going

up. British Columbia is now the least affordable jurisdiction in all of Canada. Terrible

results.

Again, this is a reality. The NDP's CleanBC plan has become the KillBC plan, plain

and simple. It's going to kill jobs, it's going to kill paycheques, and it's going

to kill any hope of affordability in this province for an entire generation. The government's

own numbers — these are the government's documents — admit that their policies are

going to shrink the economy by $28 billion and set real family incomes back a decade

to the tune of $11,000 per family per year.

[10:35 a.m.]

That said, there's an opportunity today to provide relief on home heating and to put

B.C. on a level playing field with the rest of Canada. Again to the Premier, a very

simple question.

Will the Premier stand up, show one iota of leadership and remove the provincial carbon

tax on home heating?

Hon. G. Heyman: People who know me know that I do my best to stay fit. But even I know that doing

repeated backflips is just dangerous for your health.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let's continue with the question period. The minister has the floor.

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I'm glad I'm providing some entertainment for the opposition, but their claims

that the Business Council has a credible analysis of CleanBC is neither correct nor

funny.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: The Opposition House Leader has raised this twice now, as a bit of a throwaway in

question. Let me just say that credible economists as recently as Monday in Business in Vancouver have pointed out the flaws in BCBC's analysis.

They took numbers from documents on a government website…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …completely out of context. The context is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: I'd be happy to explain it to the opposition, if they'd care to listen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members in the opposition, you're wasting your own time. You're losing your

own time. The minister will continue.

Hon. G. Heyman: The comparison in the CleanBC documents were of the CleanBC plan against no climate

plan whatsoever, which is what existed in 2017, prior to a change in government.

If this House is serious about climate action, this House and the opposition need

to realize that not only do we need to lower emissions, not only do we need a climate

plan, but we cannot afford to miss the economic opportunities in clean energy and

clean technology, none of which was factored into the statistics that BCBC offered

British Columbians. It's misleading, it's wrong, and it's not helpful.

SPOTTED OWL HABITAT PROTECTION AND

SPECIES-AT-RISK LEGISLATION

S. Furstenau: If this House was serious about climate action, this government would take the $30-a-tonne

cap on the climate pricing off of the biggest polluter in this province, which is

LNG Canada, and return that money to people who need to make it.

The other thing this government has not been serious about is species at risk. The

spotted owl is a symbol of B.C.'s failure to protect at-risk wildlife. Only one wild-born

spotted owl remains in a forest in B.C., the only place in Canada where this species

has ever been found.

The federal government was prepared to issue a rare emergency order under Canada's

Species at Risk Act to protect the spotted owl's critical habitat. In a cruel twist,

it turns out that the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and his staff

lobbied intently to dissuade the federal cabinet from issuing a spotted owl emergency

order.

A B.C. cabinet minister briefing document obtained under freedom of information states

that the emergency order would have "significant impacts on forest sector jobs and

provincial revenue, and Ottawa should back away from issuing the order, even when

a species is at risk of extirpation."

My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. How is arguing

against protecting habitat for the last spotted owl considered stewardship?

Hon. N. Cullen: I thank my colleague for her question.

Promoting the recovery and reintroduction of northern spotted owls into British Columbia

is a key priority for our government. That's why we took three key, important steps.

First, in partnership with First Nations and the federal government, we established

the world's first-ever captive breeding program for spotted owls. Currently there

are 31 owls that exist at the breeding centre.

[10:40 a.m.]

Second, we protected more than 280,000 hectares of critical old-growth habitat that

we agreed upon with the federal government and First Nations as necessary for at least

150 breeding pairs of spotted owl. We know that the limitations right now on the reintroduction

of spotted owl is not habitat, given the vast size. That is close to 700 Stanley Parks

of old-growth forest.

Lastly is the reintroduction of those spotted owls. We had introduction just last

year, and we have, with great humility and determination, introduced more spotted

owls.

We need the humility to understand that this is the first time this has ever been

done in the world. We need the determination to keep doing it, with our partners,

to make sure that owls are reintroduced successfully and breed in the wild on their

own, with the necessary habitat protection which we've set aside.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Let's be clear that what this province considers to be spotted owl habitat are areas

that have been logged, that continue to be logged, and areas that are used for target

practice, which I do not think contributes to the success of spotted owl reintroduction.

Of the three owls that were introduced by this captive breeding program, two of them

died, and a third was found injured and had to return home.

This government continues to approve logging in old-growth habitat that spotted owl

would need to survive. It's evident that the status quo approach is not working.

This government promised to bring in endangered species legislation. They've failed

to deliver. While they hum and haw, the list of at-risk species in the province grows,

and iconic species blink out.

My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. Will the minister

ensure that we see species-at-risk legislation before the next election?

Hon. N. Cullen: Let me start with the end of my friend's question. She would look forward, as we all

have, as…. We've been building the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework with

partners, particularly First Nations partners, who have been working with us every

step of the way to introduce a framework as the first phase. We expect that quite

soon.

This will be an important structure for us in dealing with the serious question of

species at risk and, of course, the habitat that needs to be protected in order to

allow those species to thrive once again in British Columbia.

I would say, however, that I contend greatly with the 280,000 hectares of old-growth

habitat that have been set aside. This was agreed to jointly between ourselves, Canada

and First Nations as the critical habitat that would allow, as I said, 150 breeding

pairs to exist. I have faith in our partnerships with the Spuzzum First Nation and

Canada in the determination of that old-growth habitat, not described as the member

did. I think that is incorrect.

I think it is important to remain determined, to remain hopeful and focused on the

habitat required to allow these species to be reintroduced successfully so that we

can all celebrate their critical return to our province.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO FEDERAL

CARBON TAX CHANGES FOR HOME HEATING

B. Banman: The Conservative Party of British Columbia has been straight up with British Columbians

about where we stand on the carbon tax. When we form government, we're going to axe

the carbon tax to make life more affordable for everyday British Columbians.

On the other hand, the B.C. United liberals have taken a different approach. They

continue to flip-flop themselves into obscurity on this and other issues. Yesterday

they're supporting it. Today they're cancelling it. Tomorrow — well, I guess they'll

wait for a poll or see what we, the Conservative Party, will do.

At least this NDP government is clear with voters. They're clear with voters. They

want the average British Columbian to suffer, to pay more and to go without. This

NDP government refuses to stand up for everyday, hard-working British Columbians,

like blue-collar workers who can't afford the NDP carbon tax, health care heroes who

have chosen not to take a shot, and homeowners who are watching this government rip

away their property rights.

Interjections.

[10:45 a.m.]

B. Banman: I've got all day.

A question to this NDP Premier: when he found out that Ottawa was forcing this unfair

double standard on British Columbians, why did he choose to cower instead of pushing

back? Why is it that under this NDP government, British Columbians always pay more

to get less, while eastern Canadians are getting a badly needed break?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Let's just go back to yesterday for one brief moment because I want to acknowledge

again his acknowledgment that climate change is real. But I do want to note that he

did stop short of acknowledging the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate

change is caused by human activity like carbon emissions.

The leader of the Conservatives, as we know, was ejected from the B.C. United caucus

for suggesting that carbon emissions were not the cause of climate change. Today I

want to give the member an opportunity to state not only that climate change is happening

but that it is caused by human activity.

B. Banman: I want to thank the minister for deflecting the question.

You know, it takes courage to stand for something and to lead — something the leader

of the B.C. United liberals is sorely lacking, I will add.

This NDP Premier has no problem bullying the little guy who can't fight back: health

care workers, police officers, homeowners and even municipal voters and governments.

This NDP Premier refuses to stand up to the bigger guy. He only wants to punch down.

It's no wonder British Columbians are yet again getting the short end of the stick

from Ottawa and this government.

My question to the NDP Premier: why won't this Premier stand up to Justin Trudeau

on the carbon tax? Why won't he fight and demand equality and deliver it to British

Columbians, who are desperately needing a break?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I noticed that he declined to answer my

question, but we'll let that go for now.

Again, I just want to remind him that the carbon tax is something that has been shown

by experts around the world as one of the most efficient and effective means of reducing

emissions. So we're going to continue this work here in British Columbia, but we're

going to do it with a people focus.

That means supporting people in the choices to make that switch from fossil fuel emissions

into low-emission technologies by supporting them in their pocketbook. We're going

to continue to provide rebates for electric vehicles, for heat pumps, for doors, for

windows, for insulation, for the things that make the cost of energy, their home heating

bills, more affordable.

But we're not going to let it go that the federal government has made a decision about

Atlantic Canada. We're going to continue to push hard on the federal government to

do what's right for all Canadians, and that is to help us make it more affordable

for British Columbians to make the choices we know they want to make. We're not going

to stop this work no matter what the member opposite has to say.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX AND

HOME HEATING COSTS

E. Ross: Everybody on this side of the House, including past members of the B.C. United party,

supported the carbon tax in 2008. Previous members that are now part of the Fourth

Party voted seven times in favour of the carbon tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh.

E. Ross: And I can see why. It was never meant to be a tax grab like what it is under the NDP

government right now. From 2008 to 2017, it produced results. Emissions went down

in B.C.

Emissions are going up under the NDP. And news flash: it's going to go even higher

because natural gas is going to burn natural gas to produce electricity.

It's going to go higher. Admit it. In the meantime, British Columbians are suffering

through the worst affordability crisis in B.C.'s history.

[10:50 a.m.]

On the weekend, seven cold-weather records were shattered, and what's the Premier's

response? More carbon tax, making it too expensive for people to heat their homes.

A new report shows heating bills are gutting family budgets, forcing one in seven

households to make the cruel choice between warmth and necessities like food and medicine.

Will the Premier finally admit that the brutal choices the NDP has chosen are forcing

families to suffer even more, or will he continue to leave them out in the cold to

pad his budget with billions more in carbon tax revenue?

Hon. J. Osborne: There's one thing that the opposition has right: people and families are feeling the

sting of high inflation, and people need support. But how you do it and whom you do

it for matters. Let's remember this is the government…. It's this government. We reversed

the opposition's tax breaks for those at the top and used that money to reduce the

cost for people.

When he was on this side of the House, the Leader of the Opposition hiked ICBC rates

by 11 percent. But under our government, drivers have received an average of $420

in rebates and a saving of $500 a year on their rates.

When the opposition was on this side of the House, not only did they keep MSP premiums,

but they raised them 10 percent, forcing people who make $50,000 to pay the same as

people making $500,000. That's unfair, and we ended it.

Unlike the opposition, which raises fees on people, we will continue to find ways

to support people, to help them with the cost, because we know that's how we build

a strong province for everybody.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

E. Ross: Since 2017, taxes have risen for British Columbians by $20 billion. You're making

life tougher with your increased taxes, and now you purport to make it easier by giving

some back, a little bit. Well, let's talk about making life easier for the 2 percent

of the friends of this House — LNG Canada was given the largest PST tax break in B.C.

history.

All we're asking is to give citizens of B.C. the same break. They were given a break

on the carbon tax at 30 bucks a tonne, which is something that this side of the House, when we were

in government, had frozen because we realized it meant something good for the people

of British Columbia.

What do we see with this NDP government? "Let's crank it up. In the affordability

crisis, let's make it worse for British Columbians."

Interjection.

E. Ross: Except for big corporations. Talk about it being Halloween. Jeez. British Columbians

are drowning in taxes from this NDP government. While people in other provinces catch

a break, this Premier only piles on more taxes.

The Premier's budget reveals a plan to ratchet up the carbon tax, year after year,

tripling the carbon tax. Don't be fooled. The NDP have a plan to gut family incomes

by…

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

E. Ross: …a staggering $11,000 annually.

Why is the Premier making life increasingly unaffordable for British Columbians through

his relentless carbon tax hikes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: My colleagues have already shared some of the initiatives that we're doing to ensure

that people have more money in their pockets during these really challenging times.

What we've heard, not only today but throughout this session, is this consistent flip-flopping

from the Leader of the Opposition: when it comes to the Surrey police transition,

saying something in the South Asian media and then coming here and doing something

different. Short-Term legislation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …voting in favour of it; then the Conservatives vote against it, and then flip-flopping.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: When it comes to harm reduction….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Members. Please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: When it comes to harm reduction, we saw the same thing. When it comes to safe consumption

sites, we saw them flip-flopping after the Conservatives did something else. I want

to remind the Leader of the Opposition of when he had very principled positions when

it comes to the carbon tax.

[10:55 a.m.]

In 2012, this is what he had to say. "I think cancelling the carbon tax…. My personal

opinion is that it would be a terrible mistake." I think that people believe that

climate change is an issue…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …and that warming of the planet is an issue. The only sensible way to deal with that,

I believe, is carbon pricing. That's the only way you're going to change behaviour.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, there's more.

On the Voice of B.C. …

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's okay to let the minister answer. It's okay.

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the Voice of B.C. , he said: "I really believe that if you're genuinely concerned about climate change

and you genuinely want to do something about it, pricing carbon is absolutely the

right thing to do."

He didn't end there. He went on, with another reporter, to say: "We knew it wasn't

going to be particularly popular. But I think in politics, at some point, you have

to decide whether you're going to try to do the right thing or the easy thing."

I don't know what the B.C. United party leader believes anymore, but I know one thing.

He'll do anything to get elected.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question period is over.

The Chair would like to encourage all sides, when they're asking a question or answering,

to be brief, as much as you can. Then we will have more time for questions. Thank

you very much.

Question period is now over.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room. I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 29, Environmental

Management Amendment Act.

In the third House, Committee C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 31, Emergency

and Disaster Management Act.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Deputy Speaker: The House will come to order. Take your Barbie conversations outside. Thank you.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that Bill 37 now be read a second time.

It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 37, the Crime Victim Assistance

Amendment Act, 2023.

The crime victim assistance program is a key component of the network of support for

victims in our province. Its mandate is to support the recovery of victims, immediate

family members and witnesses impacted by violent crime.

The benefits available through the crime victim assistance program include financial

and other benefits that address a range of needs for those recovering from physical

and psychological injuries — for example, medical expenses and counselling services.

There are also benefits available to immediate family members when a crime results

in the death of a victim — for example, funeral expenses.

[11:00 a.m.]

The program is guided by the Crime Victim Assistance Act and two corresponding regulations.

The act has not been amended since it was introduced in 2002, and there are now gaps

and barriers to eligibility that impact the program's ability to support those it

was created to assist.

This bill eliminates barriers to eligibility experienced by grandparents and grandchildren,

witnesses and those experiencing significant trauma in the immediate aftermath of

crime through changes that reflect a more trauma-informed approach.

Grandparents and grandchildren are not currently eligible for benefits unless they

were financially dependent on the victim. This is a significant barrier that often

results in benefits being denied. The bill removes the required financial dependence

and, going forward, will improve the responsiveness to the increasing number of multigenerational

households in our province.

This change recognizes the vital role that grandparents play in supporting family

systems and the significance of relationships between grandparents and grandchildren.

The current definition of "witness" in the legislation is very narrow and requires

that a witness had a strong emotional attachment to the victim. This excludes a significant

number of those who witness a violent crime, including in their communities. Removing

the requirement that there was a strong emotional attachment to the victim, expanding

the circumstances in which witnesses are eligible to apply and eliminating the need

for a formal diagnosis of psychological harm will enable better support for witnesses

of violent crime, going forward.

The current one-year limit for submitting an application to the crime victim assistance

program presents a barrier to prospective applicants who are experiencing trauma or

dealing with multiple challenges in the immediate aftermath of a violent crime. This

legislation will increase the time limit from one year to two years, which is the

time limit for civil claims in B.C. It reflects a more trauma-informed approach and

aligns our province with other jurisdictions across the country who administer similar

programs.

These amendments create flexibility to consider the long-term best interests of clients

when pursuing the statutory obligation to recover costs from a judgment or settlement

received as a result of a crime and the flexibility to consider, on a case-by-case

basis, other circumstances where it may be appropriate to suspend financial benefits

for a period of time.

The bill improves administrative processes by expanding support available for those

who are physically or mentally incapable of making an application and don't have a

legal representative. The changes also clarify and modernize language in the statute,

including references to gendered language.

These legislative amendments have been informed by engagement with a broad scope of

partners, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners across the anti-violence

sector. The ministry considered

section 3 of the Declaration Act as well as UN declaration

articles 19 and 22 in its approach to consultation.

This bill addresses significant barriers to eligibility. It improves the program's

trauma-informed approach and strengthens the support available to victims, their immediate

family members and witnesses impacted by violent crime that may occur in our province.

I am aware of concerns that have been raised regarding the growing gap between the

cost of benefit rates such as counselling services and the funding amount available

through the crime victim assistance program for these services. We are actively examining

these issues. This legislation enables our government to develop recommendations to

address this issue, and it is my intention to propose regulatory amendments later

this fall.

I think this is an important bill which will improve the situation and the ability

to access benefits for people who have been victims of crime in our province, and

I look forward to the following debate and comments from members.

[11:05 a.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I rise today to speak to Bill 37, the Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act. This

in British Columbia, removing barriers and recognizing the value of extended family.

Let me begin by saying that we recognize the need to provide more support and assistance

to victims of crime, especially as serious crime has increased in B.C. in recent years.

In B.C., services and people are available to help victims and those close to them

with the emotional, physical and financial effects of crime, and we are proud of that.

This bill is fairly straightforward, so it does not require a long debate, from our

perspective, but we will have some questions of government to make sure that the changes

are balanced and reasonable.

When we look at any changes or expansions of services, we have to ensure also that

the non-profits providing services on behalf of government are fully supported in

order to be able to do so. We need to provide victims with emotional, financial and

practical support for those who have experienced crime, helping them cope with the

trauma and aftermath of victimization. Bill 37 purports to expand and clarify these

services.

In examining the bill, we do have some reservations that lie with the implementation

of funding of this bill. Now, while government claims that the legislation will make

these critical services available to more people, we wonder how this can be achieved

without increasing the budget for the crime victim assistance program. For two years,

funding for CVAP has remained stagnant even as crime rates and violence have surged

in our province.

So the minister can anticipate a number of questions, such as: how can we anticipate

an expanded service delivery for victims of crime without increasing the program's

financial resources? How will the government guarantee the service quality and promptness

when faced with heightened demand? And most importantly, how can they guarantee that

victims of crime will not face long wait times, bureaucratic hurdles or inadequate

support?

In January of 2022, there were approximately 1,217 people on a wait-list to access

CVAP services. And if these changes expand access and not expand the funding and the

capacity of those organizations delivering these services, what will happen with managing

an already long wait-list? And are we sure that all those eligible for services are

aware of what is available?

One of the services that victims of crime are eligible for under CVAP is counselling.

These services are essential for helping victims cope with trauma and stress caused

by crime. Right now, more than ever, we do have an appreciation of the value and the

benefit of timely and experienced counselling for victims of crime, and having that

counselling available sooner than later, not having to be on a long wait-list, is

critical to help people deal with the trauma and what could be a worsened lifelong

experience because they didn't get early supports.

These services in respect to counselling from registered professionals are only available

from registered professionals who are approved by CVAP. This means that victims of

crime have limited options when it comes to choosing a counsellor who meets their

needs and preferences, and it's no secret that there's a shortage of mental health

professionals in our province. We also know that there are even fewer professionals

who are actually approved by CVAP. This creates an additional barrier for victims

of crime, who need timely and appropriate counselling services.

Compensation is also an issue for these counsellors, as the government rate is set

so far below the market rate. The competition for counsellors and for their time is

significant.

Crime victim assistance programs play a vital role in addressing the needs of victims,

promoting justice and contributing to safer, more informed communities. The government

must consider these issues and challenges and consult with victims of crime, service

providers and stakeholders on how to improve the CVAP and ensure its sustainability.

Additionally, we must ensure that the allocation of funds for CVAP are carried out

in a transparent and accountable manner.

I do look forward to examining the details of this bill further in committee stage.

I will, figuratively, take my seat.

[11:10 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you in the chair. I would prefer not to be joining

via my computer screen; however, it's the way it has to be today.

Happy to stand, or to sit, and respond to Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment

Act here at second reading.

I think, just broadly, the Crime Victim Assistance Act is very limited in scope. Only

some people are served by the program, and more support is needed. So we in the Third

Party are celebrating the changes that are made by this act, and we agree that these

changes are long overdue.

We appreciate the addition of grandparents and grandchildren to the expanded definition

of family members, and we are appreciative that the definition of witness is also

being expanded. However, we believe that the legislation needs to go further.

I've heard from many constituents who have shared their frustrations with the crime

victim assistance program, where in our constituency office, we are dealing with these

issues currently. Children who are victims of crime still have many barriers to accessing

comprehensive services. If the victim of a crime is an adult, there are a number of

supports that the CVAP is able to accommodate and provide, yet children who are victims

of crime, under their families, are unable to access the same level of support.

I just recently wrote a letter to the minister, and I want to read it into the record

here. I think that it's a bit curious to me as to why these amendments to this legislation

are coming forward without providing greater support for children who are victims

of serious crimes. The government knows that these gaps exist in the legislation,

so it's inexplicable to me that the Minister of Solicitor General and Public Safety

would stand to table amendments and still leave children outside the protection and

supports that are provided by the crime victims services program.

These are the contents of my letter to the Solicitor General.

"I'm writing in response to concerns that have been raised with our office regarding

the crime victim services program and the limitations that are preventing essential

supports from being provided in a timely and effective manner. It seems particularly

important to raise these concerns, considering that Bill 37, the Crime Victim Assistance

Amendment Act, was tabled earlier this session." The one that we're debating today.

"The CVSP exists with the intent to assist 'victims, immediate family members and

some witnesses in coping with the effects of violent crime. It provides financial

benefits to help offset financial losses and assist in recovery.'

"While I wish to recognize the importance of this program, it feels necessary to raise

specific concerns that have been brought to my attention to ensure that this service

provides the meaningful and comprehensive support that victims of crime require. These

specific concerns broadly relate to (1) supports for children and families and

(2) access to services.

"With respect to…. Regarding supports for children and their families who are victims

of crime, it has been made clear to our office that the CVSP is inadequately provisioned

to support children and their families in the wake of crime. Below, I've identified

several examples that outline apparent insufficiencies in the present system.

"The CVSP legislation does not cover family counselling. Family counselling can be

an essential support to assist families and a child that was a victim of crime to

navigate the recovery.

"Economic losses for immediate family members are not covered. When an adult experiences

financial loss as an immediate consequence of a crime or in recovering from the effects

of a crime, the CVSP will cover portions of those losses.

"For families that incur economic losses to support their child in the wake of a crime

— an example is time off work — there are no supports provided.

"While an option exists to sue the offender, this is an additional step that can require

the child to be involved in the proceedings. This may not be possible or may cause

unnecessary distress for a child.

"Items that are purchased to allow immediate family members to support the child do

not appear to be eligible for coverage. Items that would normally be covered for adults

to 'assist in recovery' are not eligible for coverage if parents are using them to

support their child.

"Compensation for counselling is very limited. Often the cost of obtaining appropriate

practitioners that are specialized to work with children and address specific traumatic

experiences far exceeds the cost covered by the CVSP.

[11:15 a.m.]

"It should be noted here as well that any administrative costs associated with counsellors

or psychologists are not covered, and these expenses can be significantly higher when

they pertain to children.

"Regarding access to services, it seems self-evident that being able to access supports

as needed is essential to effective recovery. Unnecessary delays and barriers to accessing

more care more generally should therefore be avoided where possible.

"Two concerns that have been raised with our office regarding access to services follow.

Coverage of many services occur through reimbursement and is not provided up front.

Many services that are covered by the CVSP, such as counselling, are reimbursed eventually,

but the individual is required to pay for those services up front. Frequently these

up-front costs can be a substantial burden for individuals and act as a barrier to

accessing services.

"Getting approval for services can be a lengthy process. Our office has been made

aware of situations in which approval for services such as counselling has been delayed

months. As acknowledged above, the CVSP plays an important role in helping victims

of crime navigate their recovery. However, it is in recognizing the value of such

a program that I feel obligated to raise concerns about the current limitations of

the CVSP and push for a more comprehensive service that supports the diversity of

individuals requiring support."

That's the end of my letter. I think that it is important that when the minister stands

to speak to this bill, he explain why it is that these gaps remain, even after opening

this bill for some amendments, and amendments that we broadly support. I think he

needs to explain why it is that this bill is silent on those issues.

Further, I want to raise the point about how the funding model works, and access to

funding, and the reimbursement model in particular. There is no doubt that this will

have a disproportionate impact on those victims of crimes that cannot afford to pay

for their services, their counselling services and other services, up front. And it

is going to be increasingly unlikely for families that can marginally afford to pay

for these services to go and get those services if they know that the money that they

are putting out up front is not going to come back in a reasonable amount of time.

Indeed, if there's no way for them to plan and there are several months in between

the time that they submit their receipts for reimbursement and actually get the funds

reimbursed, in the time that we are right now, where folks are struggling to just

make ends meet and folks are struggling to pay the bills, this is going to be incredibly

challenging for those families to take care…. I want to focus here specifically on

their children.

However, this is a problem that appears to be more broadly applicable within this

service. There has to be a better way to do this. I agree with the member of the opposition,

the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who noted…. Even as I expand, in my speech,

the number of people that may be able to apply for these funds…. To expand the scope

of this without expanding the budget, to think that you're going to get better results

stretching a budget that has already been deemed to be inappropriate or to lack the

scale of the problem that we're facing, the entire system just continues to get more

stressed out.

I certainly hope that in Budget '24, this minister gets to celebrate an increase in

the crime victim services program funding, because otherwise, we're going to do this

good work by updating the legislation, but the actual victims of crimes in our province

aren't going to receive the benefit of that. The only benefit that would be deemed

from that would be of the minister and the government to get to stand and claim that

they made the legislative changes.

Without the funding, it's not actually going to support or benefit the people who

actually need it. We implore the government to come up with a different system than

this reimbursement system, which really, really disproportionately impacts those who

can least afford it. The most vulnerable, marginalized in our society are less likely

to go and get those services if they know that this system is inefficient and doesn't

reimburse them in a prompt way.

[11:20 a.m.]

I'm looking forward to hearing from the minister about the reasons why he left children

out of these amendments. As well, there are some pretty serious questions that we

have around

section 6 of this bill. We'll be having those conversations in the upcoming

stages of the debate.

With that, I take my seat.

K. Paddon: It is an honour to rise today to talk about the Crime Victim Assistance Act, the amendments

happening and being debated right now. I rise for a very specific purpose, not only

to talk about what these amendments would mean, what this legislation would mean,

but also to reflect back on the voices who contributed to it.

I know that there are so many of my colleagues here, so many of the team in PSSG,

so many advocates, so many people and non-profits working the front line who carry

the stories of the people who impacted these changes, who inform the work that we

do when we talk about victims.

I had the experience…. It's hard to classify what kind of experience it was — I guess

the privilege and the experience of working as a victim support worker for several

years, working as a caseworker. The stories that I heard there and how they would

be impacted by these changes in this piece of legislation — I can see the direct line.

Now, that was many years ago. These changes, these updates, these improvements have

been a long time coming. But I can't help but think of the people I sat across from

at a desk, hearing about the needs, helping them fill out applications for supports

and services, helping to connect them with supports and services that are discussed

in this act. I can't help but remember sitting on a bench in a courtroom, as they

waited, perhaps, to testify, as they waited for more information from the courts.

I want to really start the conversation here just acknowledging that it's because

of victims of crime, it's because of families who have experienced incredible loss

and trauma that inform the work that is being done. And I want to say thank you.

Nothing can ever turn the clock back enough to make it okay. But because people shared

their experiences, because they were open about the gaps, because they continue to

advocate not only for themselves but for others, that's how we can make improvements.

At a time where people are dealing with their own loss, their own trauma, their own

experiences, that's a gift, and not one we should be able to expect.

I just want to raise my hands to all of the victims and the victim advocates who helped

bring us here and who will help make it better, make us better as we move forward.

I know that this is one of the steps that we're taking to support victims. This is

a step to close critical gaps in legislation. It's seeking to ensure that British

Columbians who have experienced crime, who are survivors, who may have witnessed crime

or, maybe, are immediate family members of a victim — that they can receive the support

that will assist in their healing journey and their recovery and to offset financial

costs.

One of the things that I experienced as I walked alongside survivors and victims as

a support worker is that it's expensive to be traumatized. It's expensive to be victimized.

That is just insult to injury.

[11:25 a.m.]

I appreciate that that can't be resolved without actually just resolving the acts

to begin with, without resolving the action to begin with, to not be creating more

victims.

This closes some gaps. This takes us a step better. When I read the actions from this

piece of legislation that's before us, I hear the echoes of survivors and victims

and their families of: "What about this?" And the gaps that…. "Why can't I have this

help? Why can't I get this support?" Here I see that many of these gaps have been

directly addressed.

When the amendments to the Crime Victim Assistance Act were introduced, it was explained

that it was to expand eligibility and improve access for victim survivors and families

of victims. The goal is to provide greater access to services like counselling.

Now, when I initially read it, and I read about grandparents and grandchildren…. I'm

not going to lie. I don't know…. As politicians, as members here in this House, we

may have a lot of people who think a lot of different things about the humans who

stand up here. But it caught me right in my chest because I distinctly remember a

situation where I was supporting extended family of a victim — the parents and the

child of a victim of gender-based violence, as a matter of fact. They had lost their

life.

And I remember there were gaps. It was hard to know what services I could get them

because the grandparents of the child of the victim were absolutely not financially

dependent on the victim. It changed the dynamic of what supports were available. This

addresses that. If passed, grandparents and grandchildren…. We're removing the requirement

that they're financially dependent on the victim in order to access. That's a big

change.

I remember these people. I remember we were sitting in a park. I remember they had

just lost their child. They were trying to figure out how to provide what their grandchild

needed. And it was a struggle.

So as we stand up in this House — not just politicians, not just wearing blazers,

not just wearing pins and doing the formal things of Legislature…. As we stand up

as human beings who have supported other human beings, I want…. Maybe with this piece

of legislation more than quite a few recently, this one, I see the faces of the people

and I hear the voices of the people.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, I'm also working closely

with PSSG regarding the gender-based violence action plan. We know that, disproportionately,

people accessing this service are dealing with issues of gender-based sexualized violence.

Again, there is no undoing that, and there are not any services in the world that

will make it okay. There are not any supports in the world that will undo it or bring

you back to the time before.

Counselling is critical, and one of the things that I truly appreciate is not only

the extension from one year to two years for people to be able to apply for benefits,

but something that not everybody knows, which is that in cases of sexual assault,

there's no time limit there. I think that's important to note — not a change but,

we'll say, related to the legislation in front of us.

I think that's important to know, as in our offices or even just as human beings with

the people we love, statistically, we probably love somebody who will be or has been

the victim of sexual violence, gender-based violence. So I want that to be a fact

that we all have embedded in our minds.

It extends the time limit for making an application for service from one year to two

years, keeping in mind the exception for sexual assault, so that people can seek help

when they're ready. That really aligns with other factors, other pieces of timing.

I think that that's a really big win.

[11:30 a.m.]

When something happens, we might not be ready to take those next steps. There's a

lot going on.

If passed, it will ensure that those who are traumatized by witnessing violent crime

firsthand in their communities are eligible for support. It does that by expanding

the definition of victim. I think that's really important, because as it was — or

as it is, I guess, before this is passed — the definition of witnesses that could

access services is very narrow.

I understand why. We wanted to make sure that we were targeting, that we were giving

supports to people who needed them the most. Absolutely. But as communities, if you

witness a crime, especially certain kinds of crime, that will change you. That will

change you, and it will change your relationships. Just in a related way, people,

especially children who witness violence, who witness abuse, are more likely to later

on perpetrate that and repeat what they've seen and what they've learned there. It

creates a trauma.

I am so encouraged by the change that's being proposed here that we'll be debating.

I appreciate my colleagues across the aisle and what they've said and the questions

that they'll ask. The way I see it is that every question asked is a question asked

on behalf of a victim. I trust that that will be the spirit that it will be done in,

because I know the depth of commitment we all have here for victims of crime and for

their families.

One of the things that I think is really important to understand as well is that the

crime victim assistance program is funded by the very people who cause harm to others.

I think that that's something that's important for us to know as we're considering

the changes that are necessary in order to support people who are harmed, expanding

the definition of people who qualify, because we understand that things have changed.

We know better about certain aspects of what causes trauma and the damage that comes

from that.

We haven't significantly amended, as was mentioned, this act since 2002. Our understanding

of gender-based violence, our understanding of sexualized violence and our understanding

of the trauma and what happens as a result of that trauma, all of those things, have

expanded. I am so very encouraged that we're making sure that these amendments are

made.

But it won't stop there. We continue to hear from victims, from advocates, from families

and from survivors. For this particular legislation, I know there was consultation

done that was critical. It was done with the First Nations communities. It was done

with Indigenous communities. Because we know that Indigenous women are overrepresented

when it comes to gender-based violence and sexualized violence. We know this, so the

consultations done are incredibly important.

This is one step, one piece of work, that is impactful. It echoes the advocacy that

we have seen and we have heard. We have sat with these people on benches and at tables.

I hear victim voices in this, and I am so grateful. It's not the last piece of work

we have to do.

Hon. G. Lore: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. I appreciate the comments by the

member for Chilliwack-Kent, recognizing and uplifting the voices that are behind the

changes that you see in this legislation and that were the force behind moving towards

amendments that we need to see.

It doesn't come as a surprise, but this legislation is very important to me in this

work. Part of my pathway to this place was through anti-violence work and working

with survivors who need to be able to access supports, whose families often need to

be able to access supports.

[11:35 a.m.]

These are the first substantive amendments to the Crime Victim Assistance Act in over

20 years. We have learned a lot about trauma. We've learned a lot about the impacts

of violence in those 20 years. These amendments are really crucial for changing that

legislation to better fit what we know that people need.

One of the amendments that I'm especially happy to see in this legislation is the

change to no longer require that family members are financially dependent on a victim

of crime to access supports. I have trouble thinking of any other word than "cruel"

behind that kind of qualification.

What does it say about how we value people and their wellness? To me, it says something

about valuing people's productivity, their income, their financial contribution. But

we know that the impacts of violence and the impacts of crime ripple out to families

and to communities. To remove that criteria so that people are able to access the

support they need when they lose someone to crime, based on their emotional connection,

based on the impact of the crime, not on their financial dependence on someone is,

to me, a huge step forward.

I also think the change to increase the time limit is compassionate, but it also reflects

what we know about the impacts of trauma and, sometimes, the time people need to be

able to then seek help and support.

In my previous work, both in and outside this House, the call for these changes, the

call for us collectively to recognize the limitations of the Crime Victim Assistance

Act were loud and frequent from both survivors but also the community organizations

that support them, police-based victim services and community-based victim services

included. I think that we're responding to that call and, as I said, responding to

what we know about the impacts of trauma on people.

I also want to thank the minister for the amendment that is removing the need of witnesses

to have close emotional ties to victims. As the member for Chilliwack-Kent says, witnessing

a crime can change people, and being able to access the supports and services that

can help them heal and address that trauma is important.

I also think we can't understate the benefits, not just to survivors, but to their

families, to their communities, to the province, of healing people's trauma, of providing

them with the supports they need. People aren't able to work. They're not able to

parent. It can have real impacts on their ability to be members of their families

and communities if they don't get the support they need. By meeting people where they're

at, by doing better with the amendments to this legislation, the positive impacts

will ripple out from there.

I heard the members from the opposite side and the Third Party speak, and I think

we can recognize that the amendments to this legislation don't solve all the challenges

in and of themselves — and that they're important steps. But I think we can also recognize

what comes along with these amendments.

The day that these amendments were introduced, the member for Chilliwack-Kent and

the Minister for Public Safety were also announcing the addition of sexual assault

centres, places where survivors can access integrated services, integrated clinics,

where they can receive emotional support and, in some cases, medical care, forensic

exams, options for police reporting — all in one safe and accessible trauma-informed

location.

This is a game-changer for survivors that removes the need for survivors to go to

a hospital, where they may face barriers to accessing care but also, due to trauma,

may not feel safe going, and then perhaps go to a police station to file a report

if they wish.

[11:40 a.m.]

The announcement of integrated spaces in Surrey, in Kamloops, in Prince George, in

Vancouver and here in Victoria, alongside these amendments, speaks to the commitment

to doing right by survivors, to delivering the services that they need and to the

ongoing work before us.

There's also additional work to do on this legislation, and I know that the Minister

of Public Safety continues to look at the regulations that go with this legislation

to address some of the long-standing challenges that have impacted survivors' ability

to access the services they need and that have impacted the ability of family members,

of witnesses, to get adequate support.

I commend the Minister of Public Safety for looking at those regulations at the same

time as these amendments to the legislation are up for consideration.

I'll take my seat with that, but I just express gratitude to those doing this work

in and outside the House and on the ground in community. I support this legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Solicitor General.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for speaking to this important

piece of legislation.

It is a bill that builds on work that has been done within my ministry in identifying

what gaps there are in assistance for victims of crime. I think it's crucial that

we look at how we treat individuals who've been victims of crime and the supports

that we're able to give them, being able to expand them.

The idea that you have to have a strong emotional attachment to the victim in order

to be considered for assistance when you witness a crime, I think, is something that

is long overdue for being dealt with. Likewise, recognizing the role of the family

— that it is not just the parents, for example, but siblings, grandparents, grandchildren,

all those family relationships in the extended family — is important, and this bill

addresses those.

As my colleague who spoke before me indicated, the regulations will be developed,

and there's work being done on that. I look forward to that work and to putting in

place regulations to help further and not just clarify but improve the system that

we have in place.

This legislation, I think, is important. I've enjoyed hearing the comments that members

on both sides have made about the bill. I look forward to further work in committee

stage and getting the bill passed.

With that hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: You already moved it before, but that's okay. Members, the question is second reading

of Bill 37.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be committed or referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, and I call a brief two-minute

recess.

Deputy Speaker: We'll have a two-minute recess.

An Hon. Member: How about five?

Deputy Speaker: Do I hear ten? We'll have a five-minute recess. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 11:44 p.m. to 11:48 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

[11:50 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada