Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 418

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Rumana Monzur

Hon. B. Bailey

B.C. Achievement Foundation Community Award recipients

H. Yao

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Clean Air Act

S. Furstenau

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Creative industries

B. D’Eith

Pets and pet-friendly housing

K. Kirkpatrick

International students and newcomer support

organizations

R. Parmar

Dairy farming awards in Agassiz

J. Tegart

Richmond Chamber of Commerce

K. Greene

Passover

S. Robinson

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and community safety issues

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Farnworth

Crime in communities and action on community safety

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Halford

Police services in Surrey and transition costs

T. Halford

Hon. M. Farnworth

Effluent discharge from fish-processing plant

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

First Nations title cases and application to private land and infrastructure

J. Rustad

Hon. M. Rankin

Crime in communities and handling by justice system

T. Stone

Hon. N. Sharma

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Bond

Petitions

M. Morris

Tabling Documents

Deloitte report on comparative costing and financial analysis of the Surrey police service versus the RCMP, April 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth, speaking notes on Surrey policing transition, April 28, 2023

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2023

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Safe Access to Schools Act (continued)

M. Lee

B. Banman

J. Sims

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Singh

Hon. R. Fleming

Bill 24 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

Hon. J. Osborne

S. Furstenau

T. Shypitka

R. Glumac

E. Ross

Hon. J. Osborne

Bill 25 — Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act, 2024

Hon. M. Rankin

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Budget Measures Implementation (Residential

Property (Short-Term Holding) Profit Tax) Act, 2024

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Budget Measures Implementation (Residential

Property (Short-Term Holding) Profit Tax) Act, 2024 (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. K. Conroy

M. Bernier

Bill 17 — Police Amendment Act, 2024 (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills

Hon. L. Beare

C. Oakes

G. Kyllo

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2024

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: A. Singh.

Introductions by Members

A. Singh: Today in the House, in the chamber, we have with us our former MLA

Chuck Puchmayr, who is here with the B.C. Transplant Society. We have

transplant recipients, living organ donors, donors’ families and staff from

that society with us today to mark National Organ and Tissue Donation

Awareness Week. They’re here to talk about the importance of registering

your decision as an organ donor.

We know that 90 percent of British Columbians support organ donation

but only a third have actually registered their decision. There are

currently more than 500 British Columbians awaiting a life-saving organ

transplant right now.

I’d like the House to welcome them.

Hon. A. Dix: This afternoon members on all sides of the House came together to

recognize and commemorate the Armenian genocide. As members of the House

will know, the House unanimously passed a motion in 2006 recognizing the

Armenian genocide as a crime against humanity. We were joined by the

Premier, who spoke, the member for Richmond North Centre, the Leader of the

Third Party, the House Leader of the Conservative Party and many other MLAs

who came together to recognize this with members of the Armenian-Canadian

community.

I wanted to introduce some of the members. We won’t do all 34 members

of the community who are with us. I want to acknowledge the Reverend Father

Dr. Keghart Garabedian from St. Alban’s — it’s great to have him here; and

the Very Reverend Father Karekin Shekherdemian, who is here.

I want to acknowledge the two young women who spoke so eloquently at

our ceremony: Aya Chapanian, a grade 10 student from Coquitlam, and Karni

Kochkrian, a political science student from SFU, who both spoke

exceptionally well.

[1:40 p.m.]

I also want to acknowledge, finally, the Armenian National Committee

of Canada and the United Armenian Community of British Columbia for helping

organize this event and my old friend, who’s turning 60 this year, Jack

Daragopian, who’s here.

I wish the House to wish all of them welcome.

B. D’Eith: On behalf of myself and the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and

Sport, I wanted to really celebrate the incredible creative

industries.

Today we were in the Hall of Honour with Prem Gill, who’s from

Creative B.C., with a proclamation that today is Creative Industries Week. I

just wanted to celebrate the music industry, motion picture, interactive,

digital media, VFX and animation, magazines and books and all these

incredible sectors generating $6.7 billion of GDP and employing over 140,000

people in our province.

Today we had so many people downstairs and many of my friends and

people that I’ve worked with over the years who drive this sector in the

gallery. There are too many to say by name. I apologize. But I did want to

express some of the organizations and unions that represent the incredible

creative industries, including MPPIA, Music B.C., Screen B.C., Books B.C.,

Magazine B.C., DigiBC, Creative B.C., the Canadian Media Production

Association B.C. branch, UBCP-ACTRA, the Directors Guild of Canada, IATSE,

Teamsters, the Knowledge Network, B.C. Council of Film Unions,

representatives from all the regional film commissions, Animation and VFX

Alliance of B.C., the B.C. Touring Council, B.C. Music Festival Collective

and the Canadian Live Music Association.

Will the House please make them all feel very welcome.

T. Stone: It’s not every day the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson and I

are able to introduce some constituents from back home in Kamloops, but

today is one of those days.

We’re very pleased to have five individuals here in Victoria. They are

five exceptionally talented guys that work at New Afton Mine, about ten

kilometres outside of Kamloops. This is a block-caving operation that

produces gold, silver and copper. They are here in Victoria because of the

corporate commitment that this company, New Afton, and everyone who works

for this company has to safety.

They are going to accept, on behalf of New Gold, two very important

mining safety awards at the Mine Safety Awards this evening. The first award

is the large underground mine safety and performance award and the second is

the innovation and technical safety practices award.

I would ask the House to please make the following individuals very

welcome. We have Shane Kozoriz, who is the maintenance manager; Nick Neu,

underground mine superintendent; Andrew Bryant, underground miner and joint

occupational health and safety committee chair; Norm Earthy, underground

miner and joint occupational health and safety committee co-chair; and

Justin Clark, who is the health and safety manager.

They do an exceptional job. It’s a very safe operation. I know they’re

proud of it.

We’re really happy to have you here in Victoria today.

Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. P. Alexis: It’s not every day that, actually, friends drop by from Abbotsford, so

if I could welcome today Jean Baker and Lorne Trickett.

Thank you for all the wonderful pancake breakfasts that you feed me on

Sunday mornings. I’m grateful.

Could everybody please give them a warm welcome.

T. Wat: On behalf of the official opposition party, I would like to join the

Minister of Health in welcoming the 38 members. I understand that only 38

managed to get tickets in the public gallery.

I know that you have more than 50, right? Almost 80 people are here,

including my good friend, Jack, who came all the way from Vancouver — I know

some of you are from Victoria — to commemorate the Armenian Genocide

Memorial Day today in the Legislative Assembly.

I have to thank the Armenian National Committee of Canada and the

United Armenian Committee of British Columbia for organizing this

ceremony.

Would the House join me in giving them a most warm welcome.

Tributes

RUMANA MONZUR

Hon. B. Bailey: I’d like to congratulate someone in Vancouver, a very special

woman, Rumana Monzur, who is an alumni of UBC and, last night at UBC,

was celebrated for launching her book.

[1:45 p.m.]

This book is written by Denise Chong about Rumana’s life. Rumana,

in June of 2011, was blinded by her husband in a terrible, terrible act

of intimate partner violence. And Rumana, rather than staying down when

you’re out, fought her way back and, as a single mother, put herself

through law school and is now practising law in British

Columbia.

I’m so proud to call Rumana a friend, and this wonderful book,

written by the great author Denise Chong, is a must-read for all of

us.

A huge congratulations to you, my friend. Well done.

B.C. ACHIEVEMENT FOUNDATION

COMMUNITY AWARD

RECIPIENTS

H. Yao: I want to take this opportunity in asking the chamber to join me

to acknowledge the B.C. Achievement Foundation 21st annual Community

Awards, recognizing British Columbians who build a better, stronger and

more resilient community for us all to enjoy.

Of course, as MLA for Richmond South Centre, I would like to

acknowledge our Richmond recipients. We have Troy MacBeth Abromaitis,

Rishika Selvakumar and Wendy Toyer. Please join us and congratulate all

of them.

Introductions by Members

R. Russell: It’s my pleasure to welcome into the House the mayor of Oliver, Martin

Johansen, as well as Coun. Aimee Grice. Please make them feel very

welcome.

They’re here to meet with the Minister of Housing and meet with the

Minister of Health to talk about two issues that are certainly top of mind

and help accelerate the work that’s already on the ground going well for

them.

Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. J. Osborne: Well, I tried to wait until the end to see if they were filing in the

gallery, but they’re not quite here yet. It’s the grade 5-6 class from John

Howitt Elementary School in Port Alberni, accompanied by five or six parent

chaperones and their teacher, Ms. Sheena Falconer, who is a former colleague

of mine in watershed restoration in Clayoquot Sound and the Alberni

Valley.

They’re not quite here yet, Mr. Speaker, but would the House please

give them a round of applause, and I’ll send them the video.

The Speaker: Member for Shuswap.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I want to thank you for hosting,

today, members and staff of B.C. Transplant. These folks do incredibly

heroic work in some of the most difficult times.

I just want to thank them for the heroic work that they do.

I really like what was shared with us today on the importance of

registering organ donation. Could you imagine, in that tragic moment when

we’ve lost a loved one or a family member, that medical staff approach you

and ask you to decide if your loved one wanted to donate organs or

not?

The best thing that we can do to help our families is to make sure

that we register. We let our family members know about our choice. I really

like the change in the focus. It’s not necessarily just to register for

organ donation transplant, but to register your decision. Make sure that

folks, your family, know what your decision is. It takes a lot of pressure

and grief off a family.

We’re joined today by both parents of deceased individuals that were

able to donate their organs to actually save lives in British Columbia and

also some organ donation recipients as well.

Thank you very much for the heroic work you do on behalf of all

British Columbians.

M. Bernier: I have a couple of introductions I want to make.

First of all, I want to welcome to the precinct the mayor of Tumbler

Ridge, Mayor Krakowka. Darryl, as I call him, up where we live, is here.

He’s down here meeting with different ministers.

I want to thank them for that — specifically, this morning, meeting

with the Minister of Housing.

If the House will please welcome Mayor Krakowka to the chamber, that

would be excellent. Thank you.

For my second introduction, it was perfect timing to have my grandson

Crozzley Bernier in the House today — perfect. We say that because…. I want

to thank some of the ministers that helped as well. With Creative Industries

Week, on behalf of the official opposition, I want to welcome all of them

here. That’s also from my grandson Crozzley, who wants to thank

you.

He was one of the only youth, I’ll say, that was in the rotunda today,

enjoying all of the stuff. I will say Spider-Man and Star Wars , all

that stuff, really caught his attention.

I was saying that maybe next year we have to start making sure we have

a few more youth in here when we have Creative Industries Week, because his

eyes were wide open. He said: “How do I get involved in that

sector?”

You inspired at least one youth today, and I know all of us here thank

all of you for being here.

Please welcome them again on behalf of the opposition and my grandson

Crozzley.

[1:50 p.m.]

B. Anderson: I wanted to welcome B.C. Transplant folks here today. I really

appreciated the conversation that we had and some of the stories that they

shared.

I also see Ashley Zarbatany. She’s done some really incredible work

focused on the environment and reconciliation. I’m just so grateful to have

Ashley here today.

Welcome.

I don’t see her right now, but I met with Shannon Salter and her

daughter Clara over the lunch hour.

I wanted to say welcome to Clara, and I hope you enjoy question period

today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M211 — CLEAN AIR ACT

S. Furstenau presented a bill intituled Clean Air Act.

S. Furstenau: I move that a bill intituled Clean Air Act, 2024, of which notice

has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a

first time now.

Causing an estimated one in every nine deaths worldwide, air

pollution is the greatest environmental threat to human health. The

COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing prevalence of wildfire smoke have

caused health experts to raise concerns about air quality here in

B.C.

Clean air is a basic human right. We must ensure that everybody is

protected and feels safe when air quality in the province exceeds

healthy levels. Immunocompromised people, people with disabilities and

all people in B.C. deserve to feel safe when entering public spaces. By

implementing standards and strategies for indoor air quality, we can

ensure public spaces are safe and accessible to all.

Vulnerable workers should not be forced to choose between their

health or their livelihoods during an air quality crisis. As wildfires

are expected to become more intense and frequent, it’s important that we

develop standards and protections for those who do critical outdoor work

in our province.

The Clean Air Act requires both indoor and outdoor environments to

be monitored and regulated for air quality. Employers and operators will

need to adhere to these new regulations to ensure safe air quality

standards are met. The Clean Air Act marks a new

chapter in our

commitment to the health and well-being of British Columbians, promising

cleaner air and a safer environment for all.

I want to give a particularly huge amount of gratitude to our two

policy staff, Rose Williams and Emily Bishop, who were the architects

working with the leg. drafters to bring this act to life. I think that

they have demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to weave together a

piece of legislation that really focuses on the health of British

Columbians.

I call on this government to recognize the value of this work and

hope to debate this bill at second reading.

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

Motion approved.

S. Furstenau: 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 M211, Clean Air Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

B. D’Eith: I rise in the House again today to recognize Creative Industries

Week in British Columbia. This week we come together to celebrate the

many people and businesses that drive B.C.’s creative

sectors.

B.C.’s creative industries contribute significantly to B.C.’s

economy, generating $6.7 billion in total gross domestic product

annually and providing over 140,000 jobs, including freelancers. Their

work puts our province at centre stage in the world, casting a spotlight

on our production and artistic excellence, and showcasing British

Columbia as a global creative leader.

Now, we’re proud to be a motion picture production centre. Despite

the enormous challenges for the past few years, our stable, predictable

tax credits and world-class crews and locations make sure that we remain

a key filming destination of choice. For example, HBO’s smash hit

The Last of Us , season 2, and Disney’s Tron: Ares

are both filming here in British Columbia.

[1:55 p.m.]

B.C. is also home to one of the world’s largest animation and

visual effects clusters. They deliver top-tier content, such as Sony

ImageWorks’ Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, which was

nominated for an Oscar in 2023.

and includes a rich and diverse range of magazines and periodicals. I’m

very pleased that we just announced $500,000 for book

publishers.

B.C. is also the third-largest centre of music in the country. We

can’t wait for B.C. to host the 2025 Canadian Country Music Awards in

Kelowna and the 2025 Juno Awards in Vancouver.

We are committed to the creative industries. In 2023, our

government provided an historic $42 million to Creative B.C., over three

years, including the domestic film production fund in Amplify B.C. We

provided $75 million over three years for the vital fairs, festivals and

events fund.

I want to recognize all of the people involved in the industry. We

really appreciated having you today in the House.

PETS AND PET-FRIENDLY HOUSING

K. Kirkpatrick: When I first saw her, I could not help but notice that one of her

ears was larger than the other, and her overbite was quite significant.

Her excitement at my presence also left a puddle of pee at my feet, but

it was love at first sight. She was and is the victim of overbreeding at

a puppy mill, and Luna has been my very loyal sidekick since adopting

her at the SPCA in Kamloops almost ten years ago.

As a proud owner of two rescue animals, both adopted from the BC

SPCA, I know personally about the benefits of the human-animal

bond.

Research shows us that the relationship we have with our pet

enhances our physical, mental and emotional well-being. Pets help us to

alleviate stress, improve our mood, fight depression, combat isolation,

encourage activity and physical fitness, and really help to create a

sense of community.

Now, given this extensive list of proven benefits of pet

ownership, the BC SPCA has long been concerned about the lack of

pet-friendly housing in the province, particularly among low-income

households and other vulnerable populations, including those

experiencing homelessness. I met with members of the BC SPCA several

weeks ago, and they described their advocacy work, particularly with

strategies around non-profit housing providers being able to house

people and their pets together.

With vacancy rates in British Columbia among the lowest in the

country, the housing crisis is a crisis for our pets too. The BC SPCA

sees this firsthand when healthy, loved animals are surrendered to their

shelters due to owners’ inability to secure pet-friendly

housing.

Please join me and the BC SPCA in continuing to challenge

stakeholders to find collaborative solutions to increase the

availability and affordability of pet-friendly housing, so that we may

all experience the love and affection that pets provide.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND

NEWCOMER SUPPORT

ORGANIZATIONS

R. Parmar: It was a few weeks ago that the Premier asked me to take on a new

role as Parliamentary Secretary for International Credentials,

continuing the really good work that my friend in front of me, the

Minister of State for Sustainable Forestry Innovation, had done when he

introduced the International Credentials Recognition Act in this House,

but also being a voice for international students and supporting

newcomers and all the work that’s happening in the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs.

I’ve had the opportunity over the course of the last number of

weeks to be able to travel to many parts of the province. I was in

Kelowna, Kamloops and crisscrossing the Lower Mainland. I really had an

opportunity to reflect at the end of the tour on the values of stories

and the conversations we all get an opportunity to have, whether you’re

a minister or a parliamentary secretary or just an MLA in your

communities, and how important it is for me, in this new role, to really

do a lot of listening and learning.

I want to thank all the people in Kelowna, at UBCO, in Okanagan

College. I want to acknowledge Coun. Mohini Singh, with whom I spent

some time over the phone talking about the important work that she’s

doing, being such a strong advocate for international students in

Kelowna.

I had the opportunity to be able to meet with so many student

union organizations at UBC; SFU; Emily Carr University — definitely a

highlight of the tour; and, of course, all the newcomer organizations

that do so much work in our respective communities.

I was blown away, when I became the MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca,

at being able to meet with the ICA and Shelly D’Mello here on Vancouver

Island, but also amazed at so many other organizations like MOSAIC, PICS

and DIVERSEcity, as well as their respective organizations in Kelowna,

Kamloops and throughout the province. They do such incredible

work.

[2:00 p.m.]

Again, I want to thank them for their stories and for really

teaching me so much of what they do each and every day to support

newcomers, to support international students and to ensure that people

who come here to British Columbia to get their credentials recognized

can do so.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to talk about all the

important work that people do on those files.

DAIRY FARMING AWARDS IN AGASSIZ

J. Tegart: On April 5, I had the pleasure of attending the Agassiz dairy

farmers annual banquet, which recognizes the best in Agassiz’s dairy

farming community.

It was a fun-filled night, with special thanks for the delicious

dinner catered by Lori’s Catering based out of Harrison Hot Springs,

refreshments served by the Sasquatch Inn and pub of Harrison Mills and

fantastic desserts by the Cabin Fever bakery located in

Agassiz.

The event is an opportunity to recognize excellence in the dairy

industry.

UBC Dairy took home awards for top yearling, top two-year-old, top

four-year-old, high herd combined BCA for 100-plus cows and high

lifetime milk production. Peterson Farms were awarded for top herd by

management score, high herd BCA for milk and fat, and high herd combined

BCA for one to 100 cows.

Awards for top three-year-old, high herd BCA for protein and most

improved herd difference in BCA went to Holberg Farm. Rounding out the

rest of the awards was the Suplesse Farm with the top

five-year-old-and-over, and lowest herd SCC average went to Dinn

Farms.

The evening was rounded out by an incredible magician, Murray

Hatfield, who had the room in awe as he worked his magic.

Congratulations to all the winners, and thank you to all the

sponsors.

Dairy farmers and their families not only play a vital

part in the

Agassiz community but in the entire province, as we rely on them to feed

our families, and they do just that each and every day.

RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

K. Greene: The Richmond Chamber of Commerce has played an important role in

economic development in the city of Richmond for nearly a century. As a

non-profit membership association, it has over 700 current members

representing a wide range of businesses and non-profits of all sizes and

across almost all industries.

The chamber, led by president and CEO Shaena Furlong, is always

looking for new ways to support and develop local businesses and

annually hosts over 60 networking and educational events, as well as

offering informational webinars and advocating for policies that benefit

the business community to municipal, provincial and federal

governments.

Some signature events are the annual golf tournament and the

Richmond Business Excellence Awards. The Business Excellence Awards are

highly anticipated, with businesses recognized in ten award categories

at a gala event at River Rock Casino Resort. I always look forward to

attending this exciting event because Richmond’s creative and

entrepreneurial spirit is something to be celebrated.

Creativity is a virtue that the Richmond chamber demonstrates

well. Unique to Richmond, they host Strictly Networking Dim Sum, which

allows professionals to connect and share insights over tasty bites at

one of Richmond’s many delicious dim sum restaurants.

They also host a Women in Leadership Lunch Series to connect women

and gender-diverse people to share insights and experiences and do a

deeper dive into different discussion topics each month. This month the

discussion topic will be addressing the barriers to entrepreneurial

success and enterprise solutions to disparity.

Additionally, the chamber offers resources for entrepreneurs, like

export documents, as well as discounts for members in shipping services,

employee benefits plans and more.

By joining the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, businesses gain a

trusted partner that’s committed to their growth and success by offering

tools and support in a dynamic business environment. Their 98th annual

AGM is this Thursday.

I want to thank the board of directors for their hard work over

the last year.

PASSOVER

S. Robinson: The Jewish community around the world is celebrating Passover this

week. It’s an eight-day holiday remembering and celebrating the

Israelites’ release from slavery in Egypt in the 13th century BCE. It is

the founding story, or the origin story, for the Jewish

people.

[2:05 p.m.]

It’s a holiday that celebrates freedom — freedom from slavery,

freedom from oppression. More importantly, it’s a holiday that

acknowledges that none of us are free unless all of us are

free.

Every year we gather for Passover Seders, or orderly meals, where

we eat special foods and read from the Haggadah, the telling of the

story of our exodus from Egypt.

This year was a very hard year to celebrate this holiday, with

over 130 Israeli hostages being held by Hamas — Israeli civilians who

are sons, daughters, grandparents and even two babies.

At our Seder, we acknowledge that the people in Gaza are also not

yet free — free to live in peace and free from the oppressive Hamas

regime, a terrorist organization committed to the annihilation of Israel

and of Jews. During our Seder, we also acknowledge others who are not

yet free: the people of Ukraine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran and so many

other regimes that are hurting people.

During my visit to Israel last week, as I sat with others visiting

from British Columbia, we waited. We waited and waited for the hundreds

of drones fired by the Iranian regime toward civilians in Israel.

Listening for the siren that would tell us whether we had to run for the

bomb shelter, I thought: “This is no way to live. This isn’t

freedom.”

Here in Canada, we have such privilege — privilege to live without

fear of rockets. We have a robust democracy to vote governments in or

out as we see fit. We can even criticize our governments without fearing

for our lives.

But these days, as a Jew in the diaspora here in Canada, I find

myself being under attack for being Jewish. Not unlike drones unleashed

seeking its target, I’ve come across graffiti in my community calling

for death to Jews. I have received a death threat for being Jewish. I’ve

had mobs accusing me of apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing because

I am Jewish.

This year, Passover was very different. For the first time in my

life, I am asking myself what many Canadian Jews are asking: are we

really free to be who we are? Because it certainly doesn’t feel that

way.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

ISSUES

K. Falcon: The soft-on-crime Premier has unleashed a 37 percent explosion in

violent crime as a direct result of his dangerous catch-and-release

policies. To make the crime crisis even worse, the NDP’s reckless

experiment to decriminalize meth, crack cocaine, heroin and fentanyl has

fueled utter chaos, turning even our hospitals into hot spots for

rampant drug use.

Multiple health authority memos confirm that illicit drug use and

even drug trafficking in hospitals are not just tolerated but actually

endorsed as NDP policy. The experiment has failed. Period. People have

had enough.

When will the Premier admit his failure and immediately adopt B.C.

United’s policy to end his reckless decriminalization

experiment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What I can tell the

Leader of the Opposition is that police are doing everything they can

every day to deal with those who would prey on the most vulnerable in

our society. We are working with police on a daily basis to make sure

that they’ve got the tools they need, that they’ve got the regulations

they need and that they’ve got the laws they need so that they are able

to do their job, and we are continuing to do that.

Whether it’s the development of the safer communities plan or

whether it’s ensuring that they have, as I said a moment ago, the tools

they need to interdict organize crime that wants to prey on those most

vulnerable, we are doing everything we can and police are doing

everything they can to make sure that they are interdicting those who

would traffic dangerous drugs that are killing people.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

K. Falcon: Well, it’s certainly not the police work that concerns us. They do

their exceptional work every single day. It’s the lack of results from

these government policies that don’t allow the police to keep those

criminals in jail where they ought to be, instead of releasing them back

onto the streets. Every day brings more evidence of the savage chaos

unleashed by this government’s reckless decriminalization and

soft-on-crime policies.

[2:10 p.m.]

Manpreet Kaur and her husband Jatinder Singh, newcomers from

India, were enjoying a Sunday evening at the White Rock pier when terror

struck. Manpreet recounts the chilling moment. “We were just sitting on

the bench talking, eating, spending quality time and feeling so

relaxed.” Then a stranger “just hit my husband with the knife and cut my

husband’s neck with the knife.” Within 48 hours, the same attacker had

committed another vile, random attack, fatally stabbing an innocent man

on the White Rock promenade.

My question to this Premier is: why would the Premier not look at

the evidence and finally accept B.C. United’s plan to keep people safe

and end his disastrous catch-and-release policies?

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

I want to point out something in this terrible tragic situation

that he has described. The police are doing everything they can to catch

the individual. People have come forward with information. The police

believe that the same suspect is responsible in both cases and are doing

everything they can to apprehend that individual, to ensure that that

individual is brought to justice, that that individual is charged, that

that individual is sentenced and that that individual goes to jail for a

very long time.

I think it’s important that the member let the police do their job

in understanding and determining exactly what happened in this

situation, who the individual is and get all of the facts. That’s what

the police do. They do it every day. They do an exceptional job. I have

faith in the police that they will do just that. I have faith in our

justice system that when this individual is brought to justice, they

will face it, and they will spend a very long time behind

bars.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, second

supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, I’m glad the minister has faith in the justice system

because I can tell you, British Columbians have lost faith in your

government when it comes to keeping them safe in their

communities.

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is people are tired of the empty NDP

words.

This minister always talks tough: “We’re going to get them. We’re

going to put them in jail. We’re going to keep them there.”

Unfortunately, the reality is totally the opposite. The public is

demanding when they’re going to bring an end to their soft-on-crime

policies.

It was this Premier, after all, that promised results we would see

and feel. Well, we’re seeing it, all right. We’re seeing the explosion

of rampant drug use. We’re seen the explosion of crime, random violence

and total social disorder in every community across this

province.

Manpreet’s words capture the fear that so many families feel:

“Today we are not safe in B.C.” Like so many, I’ve lost track of the

number of times that I’ve been on that White Rock pier with my family,

walking and enjoying the beautiful evenings. I can’t imagine how we can

have a situation where this kind of brutal violence cannot…. It should

never be tolerated as the new normal in British Columbia.

The fundamental job of government is to keep people safe. Having a

Premier that talks about how he’s white-hot angry isn’t enough. Nothing

has changed.

My question is: when will the Premier finally do his job, end this

disastrous catch-and-release policy platform of theirs and start

protecting innocent families?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the hon. member, but I will say

this. This is a terrible tragedy. An individual was stabbed, and

somebody else was killed. The police are doing everything they can to

catch the suspect. They have information on who the individual is that

leads them to be confident that the same person committed both

crimes.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think it’s important for the member to make sure that all the

facts are in. Let the police do their proper investigation so that we

are able to ensure that justice will be done.

For the member to somehow suggest that that is being soft on crime

or that people who commit murder are just released, not sentenced, and

that he seems to not have confidence in our justice system that people

who are charged with murder will not be sentenced, I think

is….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

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

I have confidence in our justice system. I have confidence in our

police. I have confidence that when this individual is caught, this

individual will be brought to trial. This individual will be charged,

and when found guilty, this individual will be sentenced to prison for a

very long time.

T. Halford: Well, with all due respect to this Solicitor General, I know that

the police are doing everything they can right now. We know that. The

problem is my community of White Rock does not know that this government

is failing every single day to do their job.

Just blocks away from Sunday’s stabbing, last night a young man

lay dead. And this Solicitor General gets up, and he gives empty

rhetoric time after time. Enough is enough. We’re tired of it. We want

results. It’s not the police; it’s this government that is failing time

and time again. Now they’re failing my community, and we’re tired of

it.

When will this Premier wake up and realize his catch-and-release

policies are failing our communities day in and day out?

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

I will repeat again. The police are doing their job, going after

this individual. They will establish all the facts that happened. They

will charge the individual, and the individual, when caught, will be

brought to trial, and the individual will face justice. That’s exactly

what is supposed to happen.

At the same time, this government continues to work with police,

day in and day out, on ensuring that they have the resources, that they

have the support and that they have a government that stands with them

in pushing for changes to the Criminal Code to be able to do their job.

We will continue to do that every single day.

The Speaker: Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

POLICE SERVICES IN SURREY

AND TRANSITION

COSTS

T. Halford: I can assure the Solicitor General that is not how my community

feels today. Not how they felt on Sunday, not how they felt last night.

People don’t trust this Premier and this government to keep them

safe.

Just today we have another example of the Premier’s disregard for

public safety: a shocking Deloitte report showing that the NDP’s

catastrophic mess with transition in Surrey will cost taxpayers nearly

$1 billion. And you know what? It should not have taken a court case for

this to be disclosed. Every step of the way, this NDP Premier has

shamelessly misled the public and grossly bungled this file.

Why did it require a court case for the taxpayers in Surrey to

learn about this $1 billion NDP bill, and where is the level of

accountability for this deceit?

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

The minister will continue.

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

I am very happy to respond to this question that the member

raised, because once again, the opposition shows just how wrong they are

with their research and their information.

The report they referred to I referenced first back on April 28 of

2023. That report was the basis for my remarks of that day back on April

28, 2023. That report was the basis for the technical briefing for the

media, which was held the same day.

[2:20 p.m.]

I can also tell you that the decisions since then were based on

one of the options in that report, the option that was adopted, the

option that was accurate. This was the comparison of apples to apples,

which is comparing the costs of the RCMP to the Surrey police service,

based on the authorized strength of the detachment at that time in

Surrey, which was 724. Deloitte confirmed those numbers.

I referenced throughout my time that $30 million was the

difference between the RCMP cost and the Surrey police service cost. It

was actually $29.6 million, but $30 million for the rounding.

I could also tell the hon. member that the numbers he had quoted

very disingenuously are based on the comparison of 900 Surrey police

service officers to 724 RCMP officers. Talk about comparing apples and

oranges, as opposed to apples to apples, which is what we talked about,

which….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh, Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will also be more than happy to table the report.

EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FROM

FISH-PROCESSING

PLANT

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the enormous efforts of First Nations, the federal

government closed nearly half of the salmon farms on the coast. They

specifically closed all salmon farms in the Discovery Islands because

salmon farm pathogens are a serious and irreversible risk to salmon

migrating to and from the Fraser River.

However, the province of B.C. has undermined this effort by

continuing to permit the Brown’s Bay Packing Co. to discharge

contaminated Atlantic farm salmon blood into this protected

region.

DFO just issued the lowest Fraser sockeye return forecast in the

history of Canada. Shouldn’t this elicit an all-hands-on-deck response

from all levels of government? British Columbians will be ashamed to

learn that the province is willingly permitting an Atlantic salmon blood

virus to flow into the path of Fraser River sockeye.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. To protect this

iconic species, will he require Brown’s Bay packing plant to divert

their effluent pipe into containment?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

Unfortunately, the member is misrepresenting aspects of what

happens at Brown’s Bay, which is a fish-packing plant that handles

farmed fish as well as wild salmon.

Over the past several years, the province has worked with Brown’s

Bay, issued directives to Brown’s Bay to update and strengthen the

effluent permits with more rigorous discharge requirements, increased

monitoring and ensuring that new technologies are being used.

All facilities with discharges from processing farmed and wild

fish are required to disinfect their effluent, to deactivate pathogens

and to protect wild fish stocks.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Brown’s Bay Packing Co. is releasing effluent known to carry

salmon pathogens. Instead of ensuring that farmed salmon blood effluent

being dumped into the highly sensitive wild salmon habitat is

pathogen-free, as promised, the minister is allowing the company an

exemption from pathogen testing.

The ministry’s unwillingness to demand higher standards from

industry is appalling, given the risk to the sockeye salmon. First

Nations, scientists, concerned citizens and others have called on this

government to stop the ongoing release of farmed salmon blood into the

Fraser River salmon migratory corridor.

My question again is to the Minister of Environment. Will he do

everything in his power to protect wild salmon and ensure that the

Brown’s Bay Packing plant effluent pipe is out of the ocean before the

2024 juvenile sockeye outgoing migration begins in May?

Hon. G. Heyman: In 2019, the Brown’s Bay Packing effluent treatment system was

upgraded to meet best achievable technology.

[2:25 p.m.]

The company has since optimized the treatment works, which has

improved the quality of the effluent further. We inspected last

September and determined that improvements had been made. We are not

currently considering additional amendments to the permit. However, we

are obviously considering many options to continue to test for effluent

and to take action if pathogens are found.

Testing is a permit requirement. The effluent is tested for

relevant parameters that are available at commercial labs. The testing

is done to confirm ongoing effectiveness of treatment and disinfection.

This includes testing for indi­cator pathogens that show effective

disinfection against a variety of pathogens that may be

present.

When inspections or testing reveal a flaw in the system, the

ministry acts and gives directions to Brown’s Bay to correct the

issue.

FIRST NATIONS TITLE CASES

AND APPLICATION TO PRIVATE

LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE

J. Rustad: With 204 First Nations around the province, all are eager to be

able to address issues such as title.

A simple question to the Minister for Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation: how many title cases have been filed; how many title

cases are pending; and how much private land, as well as infrastructure,

is covered by those cases?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question from the hon. member.

There has been a title case in the Cowichan context. There, of

course, has been the Tsilhqot’in case. There was a Nuchatlaht case

recently decided by the Supreme Court. And I believe there has been a

title case in Coquitlam. That is the state of litigation at the

moment.

Of course, our objective with the Haida agreement is to avoid

those kinds of title cases and to try to sort things out together with

the community on Haida Gwaii.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

J. Rustad: The question, of course, was how much private land and other

infrastructure is covered.

There was a title case that was moving forward, back when I was

minister, from the Secwépemc Nation, which covered an area just north of

Quesnel to south of Williams Lake, from Highway 16 to the Alberta

border, that covered all of the infrastructure, all the roads, all the

rail lines, all the private land, etc., as part of this.

The question, once again, to the minister is: how are people in

the province of British Columbia to know just what is going to be

happening, and what sort of liability is going to be associated with

paying any potential issues associated with title being discovered

overtop or being identified underneath private land and the ensuing

infrastructure?

Hon. M. Rankin: Of course, like all British Columbians, First Nations are able to

use our litigation system, and of course, there’s no impediment in doing

so. But our preference, under the litigation directives, is to try to

ensure that we come to an agreement and avoid the kind of issues that

the member is referring to.

So yes, there have been cases in which First Nations have asserted

Aboriginal title over fee simple land. But of course that is exactly why

it is our government’s goal to reach agreement with First Nations and

the individuals affected in the areas so as to avoid implications for

fee simple land. That’s exactly what we’re doing in the current

context.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

T. Stone: The community of Lumby is living an NDP catch-and-release

nightmare. They’re living that nightmare as the suspect involved in

Tatjana Stefanski’s tragic murder was caught and freed

repeatedly.

After a frightening encounter with the suspect at their home,

following his first release, Tatjana’s family felt no choice but to

flee, terrified of what might happen next. Certainly, they don’t know

where the suspect is. This relentless cycle of the soft-on-crime

Premier’s catch-and-release system has left the entire community of

Lumby, the surrounding area, constantly in fear.

The question to the Premier is this. How much longer do people in

Lumby need to live in fear before the government adopts B.C. United’s

plan to stop the violent crime and end the Premier’s catch-and-release

disaster?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to start my comments by sending my thoughts to the people

of Lumby for this very horrific incident.

We, as a government, have been very clear in our investments and

our advocacy with respect to repeat violent offenders. Not only did we

secure bail reform from the federal government to make sure that repeat

violent offenders were kept behind bars…. That policy is currently in

place, but we didn’t stop there. We’ve invested in repeat violent

offender hubs across this province, 12 across this province right now.

I’ve been visiting these hubs, and I’ve been seeing what they’ve been

working on.

I have some results to report so communities can see some of these

investments and how they’re improving our systems. There was a gentleman

in Prince George that was causing a lot of problems for the community

and was responsible for a hundred calls a month.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Member.

The Attorney General will continue.

Hon. N. Sharma: There was a gentleman in Prince George that was responsible for

100 calls a month in that community. Because of the repeat violent

offender initia­tive in that hub, that person is now responsible

for zero and is properly monitored by this system.

There are currently 400 repeat violent offenders in the system. We

know there’s more work to do across the prov­ince, but I want to

ensure that people know we are putting the resources in place. These

resources are showing results, and we’ll keep doing that.

The Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: With all due respect, the Attorney General should tell that to

Jatinder, who was violently stabbed in the neck in a random attack on

the White Rock pier. Or maybe tell that to the family of the second

victim who lost his life in White Rock last night. Or maybe tell that to

the family of Tatjana Stefanski, who was murdered in Lumby.

It’s a disgrace that this soft-on-crime Premier is failing to

protect the people of Lumby and is failing to protect this family, which

is scared for their lives. Jason Gaudreault, Tatjana’s boyfriend, says:

“The problem lies at a way higher level than the police. This is about

the catch-and-release laws that need to be changed.”

The Premier made a big, big deal about promising better results

for public safety in British Columbia, yet he has delivered a 37 percent

explosion in violent crime.

When will this Premier adopt B.C. United’s policies and stop

putting the rights of criminals, violent criminals in particular, ahead

of the rights of this family and British Columbians to feel safe in

their homes and their communities?

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

All of us are concerned whenever violent crime happens. It’s never

acceptable. What we want to make sure as a government is that we’re

working with police and communities to identify the tools and the

changes, in terms of laws, that need to happen to ensure that police are

able to do their job. And we have been doing that since we have taken

office.

In communities throughout this province, in rural British Columbia

and smaller communities, that’s why we’ve made the largest investment in

the hiring of RCMP officers in the history of this province — indeed,

the largest of any jurisdiction in the country. That’s why the safer

commun­ities plan put in place programs such as the repeat violent

offender initiative, which the Attorney General just spoke about, a

program which they cancelled when they sat on this side of the House. A

program that they cancelled.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member can say no, but the fact is, you did.

We will continue to work with police; we will continue to work

with prosecutors; we will continue to work with Crown to make sure that

police, communities have the tools that they need. And we will continue

to push to make changes at the federal Criminal Code level to ensure

that we are doing everything we can to make communities safe in our

province.

S. Bond: Well, under this soft-on-crime Premier, catch and release means

you can commit multiple carjackings in a row.

Seth Packer was arrested on Sunday for violently trying to force a

victim out of their car during a carjacking. Released with conditions,

he predictably violated them the very next day.

[2:35 p.m.]

On Monday, he violently carjacked another vehicle, this time

throwing the female driver to the ground, driving off, crashing the car,

totalling it. He continued his crime spree, attempting a third

carjacking before being arrested yet again.

On April 21, he was charged with one count of attempted theft of

motor vehicles, two counts of robbery, one count of theft of a motor

vehicle, one count of failing to stop at the scene of an accident and

one count of failing to comply with conditions from the incidents on

April 21 and 22.

Guess what. Additional charges of break and enter, attempted

robbery, attempted theft of a motor vehicle were sworn this morning

against Packer for the incident yesterday evening. Packer was held in

custody by the police on April 22, but — guess what — was released after

his court appearance in the afternoon. If that doesn’t describe

catch-and-release, I have no idea what does.

When will this Premier do the right thing, admit that his

soft-on-crime policies are causing chaos across British Columbia and

adopt B.C. United’s plan to make sure communities are safe and people

are held in custody and charged when they do these crimes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This side of the House is going to continue to ensure that we get

changes made to the Criminal Code of Canada that expands the ability to

stop bail from individuals who engage in violent acts. An initiative of

this side of the House and this province….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Let’s not prolong it, please.

Conclude it, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This side of the House is going to continue to invest, ensuring

that communities have the policing resources that they require. We are

going to continue to ensure that we invest, on a permanent basis,

funding for programs such as ReVOII that that side of the House cut when

they sat on this side of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. Members, the question was already asked, so now

is the government’s side to answer the question. Please, let’s hear

this.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Finally, I will close with this. We will ensure that police have

the tools and the resources they need to be doing their job every single

day, which they do with remarkable effectiveness in keeping our province

and our community safe.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Morris: I have the pleasure of presenting a petition on behalf of the Interior

Watershed Task Force petitioning the government to stop clear-cut logging as

quickly as possible.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to table documents on the financial analysis of the Surrey

police service. There are four copies, one for each leader of the parties

opposite. Plus, I also want to table documents of speaking notes that I gave

on the 28th of April, 2023.

The Speaker: Minister, leave will be required to table those reports. Would you

please seek the leave of the House?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to table reports.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Thank you. Now we will accept the reports.

Hon. N. Sharma: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act report for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 2023.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools

Act.

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

Bill 15, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

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

Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:40 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. If we can begin the discussion on Bill 22, Safe Access

to Schools Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS

ACT

(continued)

M. Lee: I want to resume my remarks to Bill 22, the Safe Access to Schools

Act.

I wanted to note that I certainly saw a copy of a letter that was

submitted to the Attorney General. Just a brief shout-out to Ms.

Burgoyne who, I believe, must reside in the riding or constituency for

the MLA for Victoria–​Swan Lake.

Thank you for your letter that you submitted and the copy that you

copied me on in your letter to the Attorney General who, of course, is

bringing forward this bill. Thank you for your comment about my cogent

submissions.

I choose to stand in this House to further my efforts to provide

some additional remarks to Bill 22. I know that the member for Surrey

South, my colleague, certainly in her capacity as the shadow minister

for Education, among her other roles, will be speaking to this bill as

well.

Yesterday in my initial comments about this bill, I commented on

the existing provisions under the School Act, sections 70 and 177. I

should have added there, upon reflection, that the difference between

those existing provisions, of course, just to draw two points together,

is that when you compare those existing provisions that provide for

literally the maintenance of order in respect of not disrupting,

disturbing, interrupting proceedings of a school, asking individuals

that might enter the land or premises of a school, that this sort of

activity, which is restricted to ensure order in the context of where

our children are in their educational spaces, in their learning

environments….

The difference is that this Bill 22, in the establishment of

access zones, which are the so-called bubble zones of safe access under

section 3.1 of the bill, provides for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by regulation, to establish those access

zones after this bill comes into place. Again, I have asked the Attorney

General to take the oppor­tunity, and other members of the

government who might speak to this bill, to clarify exactly what schools

and what class of schools this bill is intended to address.

My point here is, though, that when you compare these provisions

against the existing provisions of the School Act, the School Act

doesn’t say the Lieutenant-Governor may, by regulation, designate a

particular school or class of schools to be dealt with.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s an outright provision that ensures that there’s a maintenance

of order, clear language that prohibits disruption or interruption of

the proceedings of a school or an official school function, and the

lead-in to this particular provision. That’s clear language. That is a

clear prohibition. That’s clear action contemplated by this existing

statute — the School Act,

section 177.

You contrast that to this, which is some possible action in the

future, which is undefined, unspecified and to be determined. I think

that’s a very important point in terms of the nature of this bill. The

government needs to be very clear about what it’s concerned about, what

it’s targeting and what it’s actually doing by way of this Bill

I will say, as well, to Ms. Burgoyne, who is concerned about, in

her view, the concerns around restricting the elements of free speech

around these schools, and her perspective, which is wanting her children

to be exposed to a peaceful protest at school, that I think there are

some challenges with that, certainly.

We all know we want to keep our children safe, but I did say in my

initial remarks to this bill, at least in terms of those who are

concerned about freedom of speech and the ability to protest peacefully,

that this bill provides for that 20-metre access zone. By my reading of

this bill, at least at second reading stage, those who care to continue

to protest can do so outside of the 20-metre zone.

Perhaps there are some proximity considerations here where those

who want to be able to protest at schools regarding whatever issue they

want to protest about may want to do that. All they need to do is be

outside the 20-metre zone.

I’m just drawing contrast here as to what this bill is. I’ve said,

like the Leader of the Official Opposition, that this is just another

performative piece of legislation by this government — not defined,

ill-defined and not going at the real issues which we are facing in

society in terms of safety.

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville today made a very powerful,

impactful statement, in her two-minute statement, to recognize Passover

for the Jewish community. I would hope that the members of the

government, in particular, will pay close attention. If you missed it,

please take a look at it on Hansard by way of video or written

word in transcript. I think it demonstrates, though, what the concern is

and the reason why this government has been missing in

action.

Effectively what she said, which continues to be the concern that

I speak to as well, is that what is affecting the safety of children and

families in the Jewish community on our streets, in our schools, in our

community centres, including the Jewish Community Centre, which has a

preschool in it at 41st and Oak, and Temple Sholom synagogue, where they

have, as I’ve said, community volunteers, Jewish community leaders as

parents having to spend their time keeping their children safe in

addition to their other roles…. That what affects one community in our

province affects us all.

This is the reason why, when we have a civil society in our

province and we see the amount of hate, threats and intimidations

against children of Jewish people — particularly on university and

college campuses like UBC, as I spoke to about Hillel House — no one in

this House and no one in this government should be standing for

that.

[2:50 p.m.]

When you have an opportunity to bring forward a bill relating to

safe access to schools, it misses the point. We need action from this

government today, which is the reason why the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville first resigned from cabinet and then resigned

from the government caucus. This government has been taking no

action.

Bill 22 is just another example of how this government continues

to miss the point, to miss what is needed to be addressed in our

communities. I’ve spoken already about the need to address the safety of

children in places of worship, as they go to mosques or

synagogues.

There has been a considerable amount of tension about Islamophobia

through the context of the current circumstances we find ourselves in.

Certainly, as we joined with members of the Muslim community, when that

horrific attack happened in New Zealand, in Christchurch, some years

ago, when that family was mowed down in London, Ontario…. We’ve seen

many acts of Islamophobia in the world and in our country and in our

communities. That is just another example of concern.

For those who continue to focus on that…. And we all should.

That’s just another example of how we need to keep children safe at

those mosques like the one in Delta, on River Road. Children go there

every week. They need to feel safe. This is another example of what

needs to be covered under

an act like this. This act fails to deal with

that broader societal need.

I know that there are other communities, ethnocultural communities

that I’ve heard from, who certainly see the need to have additional

protections beyond the School Act and beyond, even, Bill 22 as it’s

currently being presented. The narrow, specific focus….

I think the government needs to be very clear on what it’s

addressing, within the 20 metres, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

after the fact, after the bill comes into place. There’s a complete lack

of clarity about what the government is actually doing with this

bill.

What I see is a greater need this government is not

ad­dressing, and that’s the safety of our children in other

community centres for ethnocultural communities and reli­gious

institutions. On the community centre basis, we know that with many

ethnocultural community centres or places, facilities where children

attend pre­school, early childhood education, after-school care,

like I did at the Jewish Community Centre…. These places need to feel

safe.

I know, back in the day before the pandemic, when there were bomb

threats at the Jewish Community Centre, members of the Muslim community

came out and supported members of the Jewish community. They came

together to support each other, just like what occurred in Christchurch,

New Zealand, coming together in the Al Jamia mosque on West 8th in

Vancouver. I attended, on behalf of the official opposition, with other

members of government, the federal government and other city council

representatives.

In response to a bomb attack, which happened twice at the Jewish

Community Centre, back in the day, before the pandemic…. I’ve known for

many years….

[2:55 p.m.]

We’ve seen the government, in the context of the last number of

months, and the federal government make more funds available for safety

and security. I recognize and acknowledge that. But this has been a

long-standing concern as to how our provincial government can ensure

that our children and our families feel safe in centres like

that.

Certainly, members of the Muslim community understood that and

recognized that. They came out. What was the irony of the situation

was….

On the day that we were gathering as a community with members of

the Muslim community, there was a second bomb threat, which meant that

we couldn’t go into the centre. So we gathered in the parking lot at

41st and Oak. There was a circle formed that day, a circle which I hope

can happen again in our communities, between Muslim and Jewish people,

here in Vancouver and across our province. I hope that day will come

again. We do need to feel safe.

It’s just a small example of the kind of threat…. Individuals in

our society are specifically targeting vulnerable places, places where

you would not expect.

This is why I do acknowledge the importance of schools, certainly.

The Attorney General spoke to that as a parent. I see that as a parent.

We all do. For our children, for those of us who have grandchildren, we

see the importance of this.

There’s so much of a greater need right now that we see in our

communities, across our communities. I’ve been speaking to that here in

this bill debate.

I would say….When we look at racialized, ethnocultural and

religious communities…. I know that government continues to hear from

other communities, besides just the Jewish community, about the

importance of greater protections for our children in other spaces. I

would hope that government, as it continues to hear those submissions,

those calls for action, will consider broader protections in a way that

goes beyond what is in Bill 22.

I expect,

schedule permitting, with other bills that I am

responsible for debating, to have a full opportunity to discuss with the

Attorney General and consider ways to improve this bill, through

amendments or otherwise, to probe ways in which this bill can be

clarified and strengthened in the ways that I’ve outlined in remarks on

second reading.

As we look at the additional provisions that I spoke to

yesterday…. I talked about, in clause 2, whether there is an importance

of protective access to be only in the case of a protest or whether it

could be enforced — that is, a protest as a whole — or whether that’s

enforceable versus a particular individual. That’s something to be

confirmed.

The language would seem to suggest that it is in respect of a

person, certainly. So that would suggest that it is the individual. But

the question is…. When there’s a full-scale protest occurring…. What

does that mean in the context of the overall composition of that

protest?

I know that there has been consideration and calls in the past for

this type of protection. It might be seen to be a temporary measure, a

measure that’s dealing with the current strife, division, elevation of

emotions and concerns in our province, in our communities, in our

country.

I would expect that’s why Bill 20, in 2021, came forward, when the

Premier was the Attorney General of our province, the Access to Services

(COVID-19) Act. That particular act was repealed in July of 2023. This

particular act is also contemplated to be repealed at a certain time

period. That is in 2026.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is an example, again, of the government being very clear as

to the nature of this bill and the time restriction on the bill itself.

Is there a particular concern it’s addressing right now in the time

period that it is?

We know, and this government knows well, the kind of division and

strife that the October 7 Hamas attack has caused, including to members

of our communities across various communities in our province, in

Vancouver and British Columbia. If there was an attempt by this

government to address that situation, as I am hoping they would consider

doing, it’s not clear. That’s point one.

Point 2 is if it is, then it needs to do it in a broader way. This

needs to go beyond just schools, K to 12.

Also, my third point about Bill 22 is that it’s, again, tagged to

be repealed by July 1, 2026, or on an earlier date. Why? Is there

something specific that’s going on right now that the government is

concerned about? Because I can name a number of things. I’ve been

referring to them, certainly. I think the government needs to be very

clear about its legislation and not provide legislation that is not well

defined and not meeting, at least from my perspec­tive, what needs

to be dealt with in the current context.

I know that when we look at the protection of schools, another

area that I would highlight for the Attorney General and others, her

staff that follow this, in terms of the committee stage…. Even if we’re

dealing with Bill 22 on its current wording and the current formulation,

does the definition and the application to a school, as defined in the

bill itself, include other neighbouring facilities? That’s a

neighbouring building or another facility that may not be neighbouring,

meaning it’s not proximate, it’s not adjacent and it’s not on the same

property, but it’s still operated by an education authority where

students receive education or instruction in an educational program.

That is the rest of the wording of the definition.

The reason why I ask that, of course, is, as the Attorney General

would well know, there are many school authorities that have different

facilities in a community, even some of them operating out of churches,

mosques, synagogues or gurdwaras. To the extent that there are these

partnerships, other facilities that are also being places where children

are going for school and for the pur­pose that is meant to be

addressed by this bill, would those facilities also be addressed for the

protections contemplated under Bill 22?

I know that, as we look at the definition of school authorities,

the education authority here…. Apart from a board of education, a

francophone education authority, an independent school authority, a

First Nation, a community education authority or a treaty First Nation,

was there any consideration for the types of other community

organizations that might well fall out of the community education

authority by way of definition, specifically, and for whether there are

other education-like offerings or associations that might also be

protected in this regard?

As I’ve outlined in my comments here on second reading, I’m asking

this government to be very clear on its purpose, its target, the

specificity and the reason for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by way of

regulation after the fact, not including, specifically, the language of

what types of schools, classes of schools and schools themselves will be

protected under this bill.

[3:05 p.m.]

In the absence of knowing that level of clarity, the bill really

is not operative. We know that the government has brought so much

legislation forward that is to be defined by way of regulation after the

fact. This is a pretty short bill. It’s pretty specific. So either the

government can be and ought to be clear with us what the target is — the

reason for the time limitation, as I’ve said…. And in that discussion,

we can talk about how to strengthen the bill, because when we get that

level of clarity, then we can actually deal with the protections

necessary for ethnocultural communities through their community centres

and other facilities and religious institutions.

This is where I believe the real work on this bill can occur, and

I look forward to doing that at the committee stage.

B. Banman: As always, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to speak to any

bill in this House. Today we stand at a crossroads, and that would be

the right to speak freely, to express our beliefs and engage in a

peaceful protest. Those are all under attack.

Bill 22 is anything but content-neutral. This bill, as written,

reflects a very troubling disparity as to how freedom of expression

could or would be regulated.

Let me paint a clear picture for you. If parents decide to hold a

rally in support of a school initiative, like double-stacking portables

in Surrey or putting schools into shifts or SOGI or sports programs or

art programs, if they are in support of the school initiative, they are

well within their rights to do so on school property. If they are in

support, they are well within their rights to do so on school

property.

However, if they are of a dissenting view by, say, wearing a

T-shirt or having a bumper sticker while they pick up their children,

that says to cancel any of those programs — cancel SOGI, cancel

double-stacker portables, cancel portables, cancel whatever it is that

is that school initiative — they could very well find themselves facing

legal penalties, perhaps even jail time.

Is it that inequality and unfairness that the legal system

purports to uphold?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Thank you.

B. Banman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not a matter of endorsing one viewpoint over another but,

rather, ensuring that all voices, regardless of their stance, are

afforded the same right to expression. As such, it is imperative that

this bill be amended to truly remain content-neutral. The government

must amend the bill to truly be content-neutral. Every citizen should

have the right to support or oppose any school program peacefully

without the fear of legal retribution.

[3:10 p.m.]

Furthermore, this legislation should be extended to accommodate or

otherwise create zones free from disruptive protests at critical

infrastructure points. Those critical infrastructure points in our

province, such as bridges, ports, pipelines, railways…. Perhaps if this

NDP government felt so inclined, they might even feel compelled to

extend this provision to their own front lawn and backyard here at the

Legislature. Is this where we’re headed? If you agree with us, come on

down. But if you don’t…. But if you don’t….

If this government’s goal is truly to protect our community and

maintain order, I would suggest and encourage consistency in the

approach. For unpeaceful protests, there are already laws in place to

deal with those. We must ensure that Bill 22 reflects the values of

British Columbians that they hold dear: fairness, equality and freedom

of expression. We cannot and must not allow a legal framework that

discriminates based on the content of one’s speech if they dare disagree

with the powers to be. We are tasked with upholding the rights of all

citizens, not just the ones with whom we agree. So let us come

together….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister will come to order.

Proceed.

B. Banman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are tasked with upholding the rights of all citizens, not just

the ones with whom we agree. So let us come together, revise this bill

and ensure that this House sets legal standards for the citizens of this

province that are just and impartial. It is the foundation of democracy

that we hold dear.

J. Sims: I stand in support of Safe Access to Schools Act. I have very,

very strong feelings about this. As most of you know, I have spent most

of my working life in a classroom, in schools. When our kids come to

school and when they enter our schools, they need to feel safe. They

need to feel safe. And in recent months, we have seen, right on

television, with all the full drama, where students are prevented from

going into school, and the kinds of demonstrations that have occurred

would be very, very disturbing for them and make many of them feel

unsafe.

I’ve heard a lot about democracy. This bill does not take away the

right to demonstrate, does not take away the right to raise your point

of view or your freedom of speech. This bill just limits where you can

stand as you are expressing your point of view. What this bill does is

provide for a buffer zone for kids and for parents and for teachers who

want to enter the school. This bill is not about taking away people’s

rights.

[3:15 p.m.]

This bill is making sure that others, especially our young people,

our kids, our grandkids, our nephews, our nieces, feel safe walking into

a school; that the entrance to their place of learning, the hallowed

place of learning, is not impeded in any way; and also to make sure that

they are not exposed to some of the violent and unpleasant rhetoric that

has been displayed in many public forums.

There are those who’ll argue that by doing this, democracy will

die on the vine. Let me assure you that our democracy is not so fragile

that a geographic limitation on where you can demonstrate outside a

school is going to endanger it. Folks are still free to go and express

their point of view, to practise their fair speech, their right to

demonstrate and to gather. They just cannot do it within a certain

geographic limit of a school.

As a person who has and will continue to defend freedom of speech

and freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate, and as a

person who has taken

part in many of those, I can tell you I strongly

support this. Our students, our children, our grandchildren, our nephews

and nieces need to feel safe and not bombarded as they go into their

place of learning, a place that should feel safe for every student who

enters that school, no matter their sex, their gender, their ethnicity,

their cultural background or any other differences they may

have.

I encourage everyone in this House to vote for this legislation to

keep our children away from some of the ugliness we have seen outside

our schools recently.

E. Sturko: I rise today to speak to Bill 22. As I begin sharing my

perspective on this bill, I also want to share my own experience being

confronted with protests, particularly when I first came out 30 years

ago. There were plenty of protests, and they were very difficult times.

In fact, I can remember attending my first-ever Pride march when I was

in Kelowna. There were people, they were shouting, and it was very

intimidating.

At that time, there were a lot of protests, not only at events,

but also related to schools. In fact, in 1997, three children’s books,

Belinda’s Bouquet , Asha’s Mums and One Dad,

Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads , were submitted to the Surrey

school board for approval for use in kindergarten and grade 1 as

resources for the curriculum. The books are about children who have two

moms or two dads.

In 1997, the school board refused to allow these books to be used

because parents complained, citing a conflict with their religious

beliefs. After six years, a Supreme Court ruling determined that the

books in the school curriculum need to be evaluated strictly on secular

principles. I’m bringing this very specific example forward because I

think it is relative to some of the situations that we’re presently

encountering in British Columbia.

It’s also an example of how, as a province, we have successfully

navigated these types of challenges before. Protests and acts of

intimidation continue to be experienced by members of the 2SLGBTQ2+

community, Indigenous peoples, peoples of colour, people of religious

beliefs and faiths, children and of course all backgrounds. It’s not

just K to 12 but in community places, community gathering centres,

community centres, places of worship, gurdwaras, synagogues, mosques and

even on university campuses.

I very much agree with the sentiment of wanting to reassure

British Columbians of all backgrounds that their children will be safe

at school and not have to run through a gauntlet of ugly protests in

order to reach their classrooms. But I do find it odd that the NDP

government is choosing now, with only three weeks left to go in this

legislative session.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s now bringing forward this bill in a time-limited way,

establishing access zones for a school or a class of schools. They could

have done this any time, like, for example, in September of 2023, during

the million child march protests, when anti-SOGI protests were very

intense, or perhaps early days following the October 7 attack on Israel

when Jewish elementary school students felt afraid for their safety. But

they didn’t do that.

The government didn’t do that because they didn’t need to, not

because there weren’t protests, and even some­times unlawful

behaviour like threats, but because the School Act of B.C. and the

Criminal Code of Canada both have provisions to immediately deal with

situations where students’ access to school is being blocked, when there

is trespassing on school property, where there are unsafe situations,

where there is criminal activity. For example,

section 177 of the School

Act already prohibits anyone from disrupting school activities. The

section allows for school administrators to act swiftly to maintain

without waiting for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

decide.

Under Bill 22, when an incident does happen, even if this bill

passes, it will still require the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to

specify access zones that we’re talking about, the 20-metre zone outside

of school property. Similarly,

section 70 of the School Act protects the

safety of elected officials during school meetings and allows for

disruptive individuals to be removed. Bill 22 not only replicates

existing laws, but it fails to provide permanent protections.

I wholeheartedly agree with keeping kids safe, but the legislation

appears to be performative. Some might call it virtue-signalling. If

this government wants to create a safe environment for kids and to

reduce anti-SOGI protests, perhaps they should be doing more to dispel

misinformation about it, providing more clarity for parents about its

resources. If they want kids to be safe in schools, maybe they need to

reinstate school liaison programs where police have identified the

serious risk of gang infiltration. Maybe they need to protect kids from

the opioid crisis, from declining mental health survey results, rising

child poverty.

This government should be worried about the safety of children.

But what British Columbia needs is a government that does more than

virtue-signal. We need action, and we need results.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak to this bill, and I look

forward to further debate at the committee stage.

Hon. R. Singh: The proposed Safe Access to Schools Act that was introduced by my

colleague the Attorney General will help ensure that students and staff

can safely access schools and be protected from harmful and disruptive

behaviour. We all know that young people are the future of our province.

As a mother and the Minister of Education and Child Care, I’m committed

to ensure that every student is protected while they are learning at

school.

Since September 2023, there has been an increase in harmful and

disruptive protests at schools in B.C., and this has negatively impacted

the health and well-being of students and staff. Disruptions have

occurred at elementary, middle and secondary schools, causing concern

for staff and students as young as five years old who may feel

frightened or intimidated.

Our schools should be welcoming, safe and inclusive environments,

and harmful disruptions have no place in and around K-to-12 schools in

British Columbia. This legislation will prohibit harmful behaviour

regardless of the topic that motivates it. This will ensure that

students are protected no matter what issue is driving the disruption.

We all understand that people are welcome to express and voice their

views and advocate for change, but not at the expense of the safety of

students and staff at our schools.

This bill balances the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly

against the need to protect safe access to schools. Children have a

right to education and to feel safe and welcome at school. As British

Columbians, we cannot tolerate behaviour that jeopardizes safe learning

environments, and we must continue to provide support and take action as

needed to keep kids safe at school so that they can succeed in their

education.

[3:25 p.m.]

I really want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support

of this bill. I also want to thank my colleague the Attorney General for

all the work that she and her team have done to help keep British

Columbians safe.

Hon. R. Fleming: The Attorney General stands on her introductory remarks and does

not wish to close debate and will be available, of course, at committee

stage.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the house after

today.

Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools Act, 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. R. Fleming: I wonder if we could arrange for a very brief recess in advance of

the debate on the next bill.

Deputy Speaker: If the member might call the bill so that we know what we’re

debating, and then we can do that.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call second reading of Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment

Act.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a brief recess. Thank you.

The House recessed from 3:26 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 24 — ENERGY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that Bill 24 be read a second time now.

I am pleased to present Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment

Act. Bill 24 will amend the Clean Energy Act and the Utilities

Commission Act. These amendments are needed to ensure that British

Columbians continue to benefit from B.C.’s clean electricity and that we

are able to keep rates affordable for people.

Government is working with B.C. Hydro to ensure that we have the

electricity we need, at affordable prices, to build a clean economy and

power B.C.’s future. After many years of demand being relatively flat

and of B.C. Hydro having a surplus of power, we are currently

forecasting that electricity demand will increase 15 percent or more

between now and 2030.

This is being driven by a number of factors, including population

and economic growth; new housing construction; increased industrial

development, including in sectors like critical minerals; and people and

businesses switching from fossil fuels to clean energy, like the record

adoption rates we are seeing for electric vehicles and heat

pumps.

To meet this challenge, B.C. Hydro has updated its integrated

resource plan or IRP that outlines how it will meet the demand for

electricity over the next 20 years. It’s a flexible plan that allows

B.C. Hydro to monitor changing conditions and adjust its planning over

time, and it includes a range of actions.

Not only is this B.C. Hydro’s first competitive call for power in

15 years, which I will speak to further later in my remarks, but there’s

also increased investment in energy efficiency; renewing energy purchase

agreements with existing independent power producers, on a

cost-effective basis; advancing upgrades to transmission infrastructure;

and implementing utility-scale batteries.

However, to meet the energy challenge before us, legislative

changes are needed to the Utilities Commission Act and the Clean Energy

Act. That’s why government has brought forward the changes that we are

proposing in Bill 24, which we’re debating today.

There are two sets of amendments in the bill. The first aims to

create a permanent regulatory framework for electricity service to

cryptocurrency mining projects. Cryptocurrency operations consume large

amounts of electricity to run high-powered computers 24 hours a day,

seven days a week, while creating very few jobs or economic

opportunities for people in British Columbia.

Now, it’s really not a surprise that we’ve attracted growing

interest from cryptocurrency operations that are looking to locate in

B.C., because B.C. Hydro has a supply of clean, reliable, and affordable

electricity. In fact, B.C. has some of the lowest industrial rates for

electricity in North America. But to let cryptocurrency mining

operations grow unchecked would make it more challenging and more

expensive to provide the clean electricity that British Columbian

families and businesses need to power their homes and their operations,

or that growing industries need to power up and create good

jobs.

That’s why in December 2022, the province issued a direction, to

the B.C. Utilities Commission, suspending new electricity connections

for cryptocurrency mining for 18 months. Twenty-one projects, requesting

a total of 11,700 gigawatt hours per year of electricity, were

temporarily suspended. That’s equivalent to more than two Site Cs’ worth

of annual energy.

Under the Utilities Commission Act, B.C. Hydro has an obligation

to serve customers who request and meet their requirements for

electricity service, but the reality is that we can’t allow B.C.’s

electricity supply to be used up by a sector that’s known to be

transient, moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction wherever electricity

is cheapest, and that also creates very few local jobs compared to, for

example, a new critical minerals mine.

[3:35 p.m.]

The suspension was introduced to provide time for the development

of a permanent policy framework for the connection of cryptocurrency

mining projects to our electricity grid.

The proposed amendments to the Utilities Commission Act in Bill 24

would enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make permanent

regulations respecting the provision of electricity service by public

utilities like B.C. Hydro to cryptocurrency mining operations. This

includes prohibiting, restricting or regulating service for

cryptocurrency mining projects. For example, government could establish

a limit on the total amount of electricity that the sector may use, or

only allow new connections for projects that involve real co-benefits

for local communities and that are committed to stay in B.C. long

term.

In summer of 2023, the province began engagements with First

Nations, local governments and industry regarding the design of a

permanent cryptocurrency policy. The regulation enacting the temporary

suspension was subject to a judicial review in the B.C. Supreme Court

that was brought by a prospective cryptocurrency mining operator. In

February of 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court decided in the province’s

favour and upheld the suspension. However, the decision noted that

longer-term changes would require legislative change.

The actions that we’re taking are critical to preserving our

electricity supply for meeting the needs of British Columbians and are

consistent with recent restrictions on cryptocurrency mining by other

provinces like New Bruns­wick, Manitoba and Quebec.

The second set of amendments in Bill 24 would repeal the

provisions of the Clean Energy Act that were used to establish the

standing offer program in 2008. For years, the former government bought

too much power when we didn’t need it through this program, mostly from

run-of-river projects, and they paid too much for it, offering

fixed-price contracts at well above the market price.

The standing offer program, or SOP, was a continuous-intake,

non-competitive program that provided long-term energy purchase

agreements for small grid-connected power projects. The SOP offered

contracts at a set price that increased each year with inflation,

despite the fact that costs to build renewable power projects were

declining, year after year, as the technology developed. Some of these

contracts are currently costing ratepayers $120 per megawatt hour, which

is approximately 70 percent higher than B.C. Hydro’s long-run marginal

cost of acquiring new energy. Future commitments from the program are

esti­mated to be close to $2.5 billion, with the last contract

signed not expiring until 2062.

Many of the projects supported by the program were run-of-river

hydro projects that often provide the bulk of their energy during the

spring freshet. This is the time of year when both the provincial demand

for power and market prices are at their lowest. In past years, B.C.

Hydro would need to purchase electricity from run-of-river standing

offer projects and then sell it at a loss on the export

market.

It is worth noting that there are some run-of-river projects on

Vancouver Island and coastal regions that don’t have the typical

springtime freshet–heavy energy profile as most run-of-river projects

do. It’s also worth noting that only seven projects under the standing

offer program were wind or solar projects. In total, the 25 projects

that received contracts under the SOP currently represent about 21

percent of the grid-connected 119 independent power projects in B.C.,

but they deliver less than 4 percent of the total energy produced by

them.

In 2019, the province suspended the SOP program indefinitely as

part of measures recommended by phase 1 of the B.C. Hydro comprehensive

review, aimed at reducing B.C. Hydro’s costs and keeping rates

affordable. Suspending the standing offer program has saved people and

businesses an estimated $120 million on their hydro bills over the past

five years alone.

Under the former government, rates increased by a total of 80

percent during their 16 years in power. That’s an average of 5 percent

every single year. In contrast, our government has kept rate increases

below inflation for six years in a row. B.C. Hydro rates are almost 16

percent lower than the cumulative cost of inflation since 2017, and

rates are currently 12 percent lower than what they would have been

under the former government’s ten-year rates plan. The work we’ve done

has helped to ensure that B.C. has the second-lowest residential rates

and the third-lowest commercial and industrial rates in North

America.

It is important to note that the proposed amendments in Bill 24

will have no impact on existing standing offer program projects.

Existing energy purchase agreements signed with independent power

projects will continue to remain valid, just as they did when we

suspended the program in 2019.

[3:40 p.m.]

When contracts expire, B.C. Hydro plans to renew them on a

cost-effective basis, recognizing that projects will have already paid

off their capital costs, and the current market price for renewables is

significantly lower. EPA renewals, however, are required to go to the

B.C. Utilities Commission for approval. That is unlike the original

standing offer program, which circumvented BCUC oversight.

In fact, restricting BCUC oversight was a common approach of the

former government. Their ten-year rates plan that I mentioned earlier

was directed by a cabinet OIC, but in 2019, our government made

legislative and regulatory changes to restore BCUC oversight on a number

of key issues, like rate changes, the use of regulatory accounts and

long-term energy planning.

In fact, B.C. Hydro’s updated Integrated Resource Plan, approved

just last month, was the first IRP to be approved by the BCUC since

2006. The BCUC’s approval followed a multi-year public and transparent

regulatory proceeding that included participation from 36 stakeholder

interveners and B.C. Hydro answering approximately 5,000

questions.

Instead of reopening the standing offer program to meet future

demand, government is moving forward with a competitive call for power.

Earlier this month, B.C. Hydro issued a request for proposals to acquire

approximately 3,000 gigawatt hours per year of electricity. This came

after months of engagement with the independent power sector, First

Nations and stakeholders to design a call that works for B.C.

This is B.C. Hydro’s first competitive call for power in 15 years

and will add 5 percent to its current supply. That’s enough electricity,

clean electricity, to provide power to 270,000 homes or approximately

one million electric vehicles per year. By moving forward with a

competitive call, we can ensure that we are getting the best price for

British Columbians and that we can continue to keep rates

low.

It’s important to highlight how different this approach is from

the standing offer program, which offered a fixed, set price. I think

the opposition may be claiming that we are somehow restarting their

program, but really, nothing could be farther from the truth.

The competitive call for power is expected to result in projects

at significantly lower costs than the standing offer program. The SOP

also didn’t actually include any minimum requirements for First Nations

participation on the projects that it gave contracts out to. In

contrast, our call for power requires that projects be owned at least 25

percent by First Nations, with incentives for projects that achieve

higher levels of Indigenous ownership, up to 51 percent.

The spring call for power will be the first in a series of calls

for power as B.C. Hydro requires more power to electrify B.C.’s growing

economy. B.C. Hydro expects the next call to be issued in 2026, with

successive calls to be issued approximately every two years.

We recognize that there are many First Nations in British Columbia

that are interested in developing smaller clean power projects that

aren’t large enough to meet the 40 megawatt size threshold under the

call for power.

When we indefinitely suspended the standing offer program in 2019,

we exempted five projects in the process that had significant First

Nations involvement and/or were part of impact benefit agreements.

Electricity purchase agreements have since been signed with three of

them. In total, B.C. Hydro is aware of six standing offer program

projects where First Nations hold an ownership stake.

Moving forward, we are developing a program to support smaller

clean energy projects that are majority-owned by First Nations. The

province has contributed $140 million to the B.C. Indigenous clean

energy initiative, which is a funding partnership between B.C., Canada

and the New Relationship Trust. These funds will be used to support

smaller projects that often have higher anticipated costs compared to

the larger, utility-scale projects that are targeted by the call for

power.

With funding provided by the province, this will enable First

Nations to advance projects that benefit their communities while

avoiding rate increases for B.C. Hydro customers. Again, this is in

stark contrast to the standing offer program that was covered entirely

by ratepayers, contributing to the higher rates that we saw under the

former government.

Before closing, I want to acknowledge the current historic drought

that has impacted B.C. Hydro’s reservoirs and required the province to

rely on increased imports. I imagine that some, if not many, in the

opposition may want to argue that if government had not suspended the

standing offer program in 2019, we wouldn’t have needed to rely on

imports this past year.

[3:45 p.m.]

Unfortunately, the math really doesn’t add up. Given their small

size, standing offer program projects account for only about 1 percent

of B.C. Hydro’s total supply. So even a doubling of the program’s

portfolio would have barely helped last year, while significantly adding

to the cost pressures that B.C. Hydro faces.

Run-of-river projects would have been just as impacted, too, by

the drought as B.C. Hydro’s heritage dams. We are fortunate to be part

of an interconnected grid across western North America, where B.C. Hydro

is able to purchase cheap solar from places like California and Arizona

during the day and hold water in our reservoirs for when it’s needed

most.

The current drought and the potential for more frequent and severe

droughts due to climate change do highlight how important it is to plan

for the future, to diversify how we generate power in B.C. and ensure

that we preserve our electricity supply for the benefit of British

Columbians. That’s exactly what we’re doing through Bill 24 and our call

for power.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. I

listened with interest to the minister’s remarks.

I support efforts to prohibit, restrict or regulate service for

cryptocurrency mining projects in this province. I think that this is a

good step for this government and this minister to take. I agree with

the minister that cryptocurrency miners consume too much electricity and

provide too few jobs.

I am going to make the case that this exact kind of effort should

be extended to the LNG industry. The LNG industry also consumes large

amounts of clean electricity and, in exchange, does not provide a

commensurate number of jobs. B.C.’s LNG industry comprises six projects

at various stages of development, two under construction and currently

slated to begin operations in 2025 and 2027.

LNG is a bad investment for many reasons. For one, future demand

for LNG is highly uncertain. The International Energy Agency holds that

there is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in a world

that reaches net zero by 2050. Global LNG export capacity is anticipated

to increase by 43 percent from today by the end of the decade, just as

B.C.’s export projects are planned to come online.

Secondly, LNG requires huge amounts of electricity. If all six LNG

facilities were to be built, it would require around 43 terawatt hours

of electricity per year. Thank you to my colleague. For context, that’s

69 percent of B.C.’s total 2022 demand or the equivalent of the

electricity from more than eight Site C dams — eight. That’s eight Site

C dams for LNG projects alone. Just going to let that sit there for a

minute. Diverting this much power to LNG would mean less power available

for households or cleaner industries on a less risky path.

Thirdly, LNG would come at a cost to household affordability, jobs

and, potentially, ratepayers. Importing just one Site C worth of

electricity would cost the B.C. ratepayers around $600 million annually.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government anticipates that LNG exports could cause

domestic natural gas prices to increase by up to 28 percent over the

next 25 years.

Building these facilities would also divert construction workers

away from housing and other projects, such as expanding B.C.’s clean

electricity grid and generation at a time when this kind of labour is

projected to be in short supply. It’s a lot of risks.

LNG is a poor choice in a climate crisis. It’s far from clean,

with emissions associated with every step of the supply chain, from

extraction to liquefication to combustion. If all six proposed LNG

projects were to be built, their operational and upstream emissions

alone would account for 40 percent of the province’s 2030 emissions

targets.

The assumption that LNG could reduce emissions by displacing coal

is highly uncertain and questioned, with some studies suggesting it

could have a negative overall impact on emissions. LNG production

and….

[3:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m hoping you can bring it back to the actual bill that

we’re debating.

S. Furstenau: I am making the case, Madam Speaker, why this bill could apply to

other industries as it’s being applied to the cryptocurrency industry.

There’s a strong case for these kinds of regulations to be applied to

another industry that has the potential of consuming enormous amounts of

energy that British Columbians need for a resilient, stable and

affordable energy future for the people in this province.

I will take your guidance, Madam Speaker, and just point out that

B.C. needs to put itself on a path to a truly clean energy future, which

would involve our energy production not going to industries like

cryptocurrency or a fracked gas industry, which are going to absorb much

more of our energy and emit too many of our emissions for us to consider

this as a future for our province.

Bill 24 also repeals

part 4 of the Clean Energy Act, which is the

standing offer program. Established in 2008, the standing offer program

was B.C. Hydro’s primary mechanism for signing independent power

projects. Most independent power projects, IPPs, were developed by or in

partnership with First Nations. In March, 2018, shortly after the Site C

dam was approved, B.C. Hydro stated they would not be issuing any energy

purchase agreements, effectively signalling their intention to wind down

opportunities for independent power producers, many of which were First

Nations.

In 2019, the province suspended the standing offer program. There

are implications for scrapping policies like the standing offer program,

including a loss of trust. Many clean energy producers invested their

life savings into establishing family-run green power projects. For

decades, these projects supplied electricity to remote communities and

the provincial grid. A lack of vision and planning creates an uncertain

investment environment for clean energy companies, and in doing so, we

missed out on key skills training, jobs, investments in clean energy,

the economy of the future.

Furthermore, suspending the standing offer program hindered First

Nations contributions to B.C.’s clean energy economy and has stymied

investment in the sector. First Nations in B.C. have a long history of

working with IPPs to produce and sell power to B.C. Hydro in their

territories. But there’s been no opportunity to do that since the end of

the standing offer program. Supporting First Nations leadership in

B.C.’s renewable energy sector is critical to meeting B.C.’s legislative

commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions to 40 percent below 2007

levels by 2030, to support remote Indigenous communities transition off

of diesel fuel and to advance reconciliation with Indigenous

people.

A 2017 survey conducted by the B.C. First Nations Clean Energy

Working Group found that 98 percent of First Nation communities in B.C.

want to participate in the renewable energy sector. There is interest

and capacity, but unfortunately, this government stymied this momentum

and shut a door during a crucial window of time. At the same time, it

was opening the door to Site C, something that in 2017, they ran on

suggesting that they would not do.

We support the call for power and look forward to the

diversification of energy procurement and production in the province. We

need more wind and solar. We are happy to see that this call requires a

minimum of 25 percent equity ownership by First Nations, whose

territories facilities would be located in.

This call for power requires a minimum of 40 megawatts, which is a

huge investment and a good opportunity if First Nations have projects

that size in their territory. But what about smaller projects? It is

unlikely the Indigenous clean energy initiative, with only $140 million

invested by the province, will go far enough in supporting the

small-scale, Indigenous-owned clean energy projects we desperately need.

I’ve heard from Indigenous leaders that they want the standing offer

program to remain suspended, rather than eliminated, so that it could be

reactivated if need be.

Local renewable energy projects developed by First Nations are

preferable to purchasing electricity from the U.S., but unfortunately,

that is what we seem to be doing. Last year B.C. Hydro imported 20

percent of the province’s electricity. This government predicts a 15

percent increase in electricity demand by 2030, and B.C. Hydro expects a

shift from a surplus to a deficit of power by 2030, even with the

addition of Site C power in 2025, perhaps.

[3:55 p.m.]

Premier Eby admitted that B.C. Hydro’s slow-motion approvals

process is a major obstacle to the province developing the power it

needs in the short to medium term. But we also must consider our

long-term energy needs, power generation and infrastructure requirements

for various industries. Ultimately, the future of our energy supply is a

crucial consideration. It affects all of us on a daily basis.

What lies ahead for our energy future? What should it look like?

These are questions that demand careful consideration. And the province

needs to ensure British Columbians that history won’t be repeated. We

can’t afford to invest in a new clean energy policy landscape just to

have it scrapped again. The public, companies and investors need

certainty. I think, too, and I’ll just end….

The minister talked about drought at the end of her comments, and

I think that we are seeing a significantly transformed landscape

already, due to climate change. We are seeing impacts of drought all

over this province, and I think that it behooves the minister and the

government and the ministry to really consider a clean energy future

that isn’t overly reliant on dams, that isn’t overly reliant on seeing

hydro power as the way forward, because of the conditions of drought

that we’re seeing.

I’ll just come back to where I started, which is that our clean

energy should not be going to fuel dirty energy. This makes no sense in

2024. If we are generating clean energy in this province, the last thing

we should be doing with it is building transmission lines to LNG

facilities so that they can create dirty energy which then they export

out of B.C., generating mostly profits for the multinational companies

that are owning those LNG plants.

I would really hope to see a better vision for the future of

energy and, in particular, clean energy in this province.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the previous speakers.

I’m glad to speak here today on Bill 24, Energy Statutes Amendment

Act, 2024. A lot to be discussed on this one. It’s not exactly a sexy

topic. It’s one of those bills that kind of flies over most people’s

heads, but it’s an important one. It’s a really important bill. It’s

only about seven or eight clauses long. It does a couple of

things.

It addresses amendments to the Utilities Commission Act and the

Clean Energy Act. The amendments to the Clean Energy Act are quite

simple. The bill essentially eliminates the standing offer program that

this B.C. NDP government has placed on hold since just a short time

coming into office in 2017. It also regulates the crypto mining sector.

It regulates that sector and what it does for the economy here in

B.C.

I will start with the amendments to the Clean Energy Act and

removing the standing offer program. The minister previously mentioned a

little bit of a history lesson on the last couple of years, but I’d like

to go back a little bit farther, to when the standing offer first came

in and what the purpose was. It actually was a pretty innovative time

back then in 2007.

This was Premier Gordon Campbell’s B.C. energy plan that he came

up with and started weaving in the language to develop a standing offer

program. Basically, the standing offer program encourages the

development of new, small and clean renewable energy projects by

multiple developers throughout the province. The SOP was developed to

streamline the process for selling electricity to B.C. Hydro for

projects that will be connected to B.C. Hydro’s distribution system and

to simplify the contract, which is called the standard form EPA — most

people just call it the EPA — between B.C. Hydro and the

developer.

The SOP is also intended to decrease transaction costs for

developers while remaining cost-effective for ratepayers and embodies

the principles and policies set out in the B.C. energy plan and the

Clean Energy Act.

[4:00 p.m.]

The reason I wanted to take a little bit of a background on this

is because it was a lot of good work and a lot of good effort that was

put into bringing forward this B.C. energy plan.

In 2007, Gordon Campbell set out the plan. It was 55 policy

actions. It’s important to note that these 55 policy actions were

setting aggressive targets for zero net greenhouse gas emissions and new

investments in innovation. In 2008, as I said, the principles and

policies set out in the 2007 B.C. energy plan brought forward the

standing offer program, which encouraged the development of small,

clean, renewable electricity projects throughout B.C. It was very well

adopted. There were a lot of folks that came to the table on

it.

The minister noted that the new targeted, competitive, as she

calls it, plan that will be rolled out will have a minimum threshold of

25 percent Indigenous participation. I would argue that most of these

SOPs that went out in the last 15 years, I guess, or 12 years had 100

percent First Nation participation, a lot of them. I’ll be speaking to

that a little bit later.

In 2008, the principles and policies set out in the 2007 B.C.

energy plan brought forward the standing offer program, which encouraged

the development of small, clean or renewable electricity projects

throughout B.C. These clean or renewable projects were less than 15

megawatts. Now, for those that don’t understand, maybe, what that means,

15 megawatts would be about the same…. It would be about 5,800 homes it

could power from 15 megawatts.

In 2008, the standing offer program started, which included input

from First Nations and stakeholders on the design of the program,

feedback on the rules and the electricity purchase agreements — close to

1,000 comments and 11 information sessions across the province. When the

program was brought in, there was really comprehensive consultation from

across all sectors and First Nations. It was proven through all the

information sessions that they had and all the comments that came

back.

After this SOP was developed, it was filed with the BCUC, and a

negotiated settlement process took place to further define the program.

This process involved 34 interveners and BCUC staff. On March 19, 2008,

the BCUC approved the negotiated settlement agreement and the

expenditures required to implement the SOP for the next two years. The

program was launched April 11, 2008.

In 2010, just a year and a half…. Well, it was two years. They did

a little bit of a trial run on it. In 2010, there was a review of the

program, once again with a ton of engagement, with many interviews with

SOP applicants, questionnaires, dialogue sessions and First Nation

sessions, all of this to redevelop the program rules, including pricing;

standard form electricity purchase agreements, EPAs; and supporting

documents for the fall of 2010, with an official launch of the revised

program on January 25, 2011. So already, in just over two years, the

program has gone through consultation, review, implementation, a trial

period, more consultation and more review. It was very comprehensive, as

I said.

All of this was at the same time in 2010 that Gordon Campbell

initiated the Clean Energy Act, which the standing offer program was

embedded into. This is what we’re eliminating now. This act set the

stage for B.C. to really take a leadership role across North America and

make unparalleled investments in renewable energy. B.C. was about to

become the leader in North America of clean, renewable, low-carbon

electricity.

Included in the act was the provision that B.C. procure 93 percent

of its energy from clean or renewable resources. This is the first of

its kind anywhere on the continent that this type of initiative was

taking place. This act also contained the self-sufficiency clause,

requiring B.C. to generate enough electricity in-province to meet its

own needs, provided that water conditions are average or above average.

Because we’re so clean with our hydropower here in the province, that is

an important factor to factor in.

[4:05 p.m.]

In 2014 — April, as a matter of fact — another review of this SOP

was entailed, a series of First Nations and stakeholder meetings across

B.C. Over 80 First Nations, representatives and 100 stakeholders

participated in these meetings and provided feedback on the standing

offer program engagement guide. Here we are about six years in now,

three consultations, three reviews, tons of engagement, and now we’re

here in 2014.

Subsequent to the April 2014 engagement, there were focus group

discussions with representatives from the First Nations Energy Mining

Council, First Nations Clean Energy Working Group, Clean Energy B.C.,

CanWEA and various independent power producers. The feedback received

and the outcome of the focus groups were considered, along with the

technical and financial considerations, in the revised Standing

Offer Program Rules and standard form electricity purchasing

agreements, released in March 2016.

All of this work brought forward great partnerships in independent

power production and helped our province in the effort of being

self-sufficient in our energy needs in B.C. It is important to recognize

the history, because these plans had long-term vision that extended way

past the four-year political cycles. We’ll get into the political

part

in just a bit, but I think it’s important just to reflect on that first

ten years of the program, how much consultation went into it, how much

redevelopment went into it with the BCUC staff and First Nations and

those that participated in the SOP program. The scope was far and wide,

and it was a really good partnership.

But 2017 happened, and we had a change in government. Not even a

year after the last review, work started immediately to unravel all this

good work, because on March 14, 2018, B.C. Hydro was still pursuing

electricity purchasing agreements for five clean energy projects that

were part of an impact benefits agreement with B.C. Hydro and/or were

mature projects that had significant First Nations involvement. I might

get to that, who those were, in just a second here.

The NDP stopped there. That was the end of it. Why? There were

great partnerships. No one really knew at that time. One project in the

queue, or heading that way, was in my riding. It was a solar project

that they, Ktunaxa First Nation, felt that they were denied, quite

honestly. I remember a lot of resentment over that, a lot of

frustration. They’d worked on putting a plan forward, and of course,

when the SOP was put on hold, they were upset, let’s just

say.

B.C. Hydro supported the government’s decision to take a closer

look at energy procurement. As a result, there was a decision not to

issue any additional electricity purchasing agreements. I think that was

an order-in-council, G161/18, back on October 28, 2018.

This decision was based on rates and the perceived surplus energy

that the Site C dam would provide, even though this decision was against

their own provincial platform on stopping the Site C project. But I

remember, as being the critic for Energy and Mines, sitting in this very

chamber and listening to the minister, Minister Mungall at the time,

talking about whether Site C would go ahead. And of course, they adopted

it.

The standing offer and the micro standing offer programs were put

on hold until a review was complete. So we sat and we waited. I remember

talking to Clean Energy B.C. at a conference in Trail and a lot of upset

people. A lot of programs were put on hold. A lot of investment