Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 31, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 79

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Action on systemic racism against Indigenous

persons

J. Rice

Johnson Su-sing Chow

T. Wat

D. Coulter

South Okanagan Immigrant and Community Services and

anti-racism campaign

B. Stewart

James Francis Edwards

R. Leonard

Earth Ninjas litter cleanup volunteers

B. Banman

Ministerial Statements

Burial site of Indigenous children at Kamloops

residential school

Hon. J. Horgan

P. Milobar

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Support for residential school survivors and

families

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Repatriation of Indigenous children buried at

residential schools

E. Ross

Hon. J. Horgan

Protection of old-growth forests and conservation

funding

A. Olsen

Hon. J. Horgan

Funding for spinal cord injury research

S. Cadieux

Hon. N. Simons

Hon. J. Horgan

D. Davies

Application of freedom-of-information legislation

to InBC Investment Corp.

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

P. Milobar

Hon. L. Beare

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, A Cautious Way Forward:

Fairness Principles for Public Service Providers Regarding the

Use of COVID-19 Vaccine Certification , May 2021

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Ministerial

Order M212/2020, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding

Order-in-Council 310/2021, Attorney General

B.C. Assessment, annual service plan report, 2020

Petitions

G. Lore

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. J. Osborne

T. Stone

Hon. J. Osborne

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

M. Morris

T. Shypitka

R. Glumac

G. Lore

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Public Safety and Solicitor General

Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Public Safety and Solicitor General

Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment

Act, 2021 (continued)

M. Morris

B. Stewart

E. Ross

L. Doerkson

T. Shypitka

B. Banman

I. Paton

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

S. Furstenau

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction (continued)

S. Cadieux

Hon. N. Simons

D. Davies

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family

Development

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

S. Furstenau

MONDAY, MAY 31, 2021

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: Today is my brother Lakhwinder Singh Boparai’s birthday, and it was

also my husband, Baljit Singh Sandhu’s, birthday yesterday. My husband and

my brother have been so supportive and encouraging to me throughout various

journeys in my life.

May I please ask all the members of this House to join me to wish

happy birthday to my brother Lahkwinder and my husband, Baljit.

Happy birthday, Baljit and Veer Ji. ਜਨਮਦਿਨ

ਮੁਬਾਰਕ.

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m very pleased today to rise and introduce a constituent of mine, a

grade 8 student at St. Michaels University School, Mr. Haven Miller, who is

with us.

He has taken the morning to cross-examine me on issues of

Indigenous relations and reconciliation, and he’s extremely knowledgable

about that. He’s a debater. He’s been in various debating enterprises around

British Columbia, and I’m very proud to have him as a constituent and for

being with us today.

Please join me in welcoming him.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ACTION ON SYSTEMIC RACISM

AGAINST INDIGENOUS

PERSONS

J. Rice: For years, the overwhelming narrative of Canadian education taught

us generations of non-Indigenous Canadians that Canada was forged by the

hard work of white people and the false narrative that Indigenous people

were savage and conquered. An Indigenous friend from Kamloops tells me

it’s a near insurmountable task to overcome the lessons that generations

of systemic racism taught everyday Canadians, but Indigenous People do

it every day. Indigenous People are expected to make up for 100 years of

a system that relegated and legislated native people to the margins of

history and society.

Then last Thursday, the bodies of over 200 children were

discovered in Kamloops in an unmarked mass grave. Suddenly, people

across Canada cannot turn a blind eye to the horrors of residential

schools. For a moment, no one is telling Indigenous People to get over

it. Nobody is blaming these children for their own demise.

Canadians are looking in the mirror. But let it not just be the

rear view. My friend from Kamloops tells me it’s not enough to say

you’re not racist. Indigenous People need non-Indigenous people to be

anti-racist. We’re asking you to speak up against racism.

As Mary Ellen

Turpel-Lafond so ably said: “Let us mourn these lives tragically lost.

Let us name the children to ensure we know who they are and so we can

return them to whom they belong. But to honour their lives and countless

others, let us act. Let us break the patterns of fighting in courts and

legislatures over whether Indigenous Peoples have rights and get on with

implementing them in tangible ways. Only by doing this are we showing

that, indeed, we are breaking from the past.”

JOHNSON SU-SING CHOW

T. Wat: I rise today to honour Johnson Su-sing Chow, one of Canada’s

greatest Chinese painters and calligraphy artists who recently passed

away at the age of 101. Chow was the first president of the Vancouver

association of Chinese artists, and his paintings and calligraphy have

been shown in dozens of museums and cultural institutions around the

world.

The profound cultural impact that Su-sing Chow’s work has had on

Chinese art, both here in Canada and in China, cannot be understated.

The Hong Kong Museum of Art has several of Chow’s pieces in its

permanent collection, and his hometown, Suzhou, has even established a

museum in his honour.

Chow was born in 1923 in Suzhou, China, and moved to Hong Kong in

1949, settling in Canada in 1980. A graduate of the prestigious Suzhou

Academy of Fine Arts, Chow became a master of both traditional Chinese

art while also pushing boundaries with his modern, contemporary style,

which profoundly embraced his Chinese heritage as well as adopted

western influences.

An author of several books as well as a professor, Chow truly

lived his life to the fullest. Although he did not arrive until well

into his 50s, Chow was quick to call Canada home, and his legacy on our

local art cannot be understated, with his influences found in both the

pieces he created and the people he taught and influenced over his

illustrious career.

[1:40 p.m.]

A philanthropist at heart, Chow often donated his masterpieces for

charity auctions and strongly encouraged education and political

participation — a true Renaissance man who inspired all the lives he

encountered. We are incredibly saddened to learn of his passing, but his

incredible works and legacy will live on for generations to

come.

D. Coulter: It’s an honour to be in Victoria this week to celebrate the start

of B.C.’s fourth annual AccessAbility Week. This week we also celebrate

national Indigenous AccessAbility Week and the incredible work of the

British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, Canada’s

first and only stand-alone organization serving Indigenous Peoples with

disabilities.

During this final week in May, we celebrate the abilities of

people, recognize the individuals and organizations that continue to go

above and beyond to make our province more inclusive and raise awareness

about what each of us can do to support the right and opportunity of

every person with a disability to live in an accessible and inclusive

community.

We know that, every day, the more than 926,000 people living with

a disability in our province face barriers to full and equitable

participation in their communities, and we know that this pandemic has

created new barriers for people with disabilities. As we move forward

with our recovery, we have an opportunity to make different choices that

will break down barriers, promote fairness and equity and help foster a

culture of inclusion in B.C.

One key part of this work is the province’s introduced

areas, including employment, the built environment and the delivery of

services. By proactively identifying, removing and preventing barriers

to inclusion, this legislation will directly improve the lives of people

with disabilities in every corner of our province.

Beyond this legislation, each one of us can also take steps to

remove barriers. We can always use people-first language. We can watch

shows or read stories featuring people with disabilities, and we can

respect the rules when it comes to accessible parking spots, even if

it’s just for a quick stop.

The biggest thing that each one of us can do is change our

attitudes towards an understanding of disability. This week is an

opportunity to promote inclusion and acknowledge the efforts of

individuals, workplaces and communities to build a barrier-free

B.C.

I invite all members to join me and everyone in British Columbia

in recognizing May 30 to June 5 as AccessAbility Week.

SOUTH OKANAGAN

IMMIGRANT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

AND ANTI-RACISM CAMPAIGN

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to recognize some

work of a valuable organization in the Okanagan and their work in

fighting racism through­out the Okanagan. The South Okanagan

Immigrant and Community Services, SOICS, is an organization dedicated to

welcoming immigrants to the Okanagan and supporting them as They become

part of the community.

This year SOICS has teamed up with the Okanagan chambers of

commerce and the COVID Response Coalition, #OkWeGotThis, to develop an

anti-racism campaign to fight the increase in racism and hate crimes

we’ve seen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this moving video

entitled What Do You See? , SOICS educates viewers on the racial

biases and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on insights of racism

towards ethnic minorities in the Okanagan, while also working to break

down barriers and promote understanding.

Viewers are introduced to people throughout the Okanagan who share

that they are business owners, food producers, employers and front-line

workers, but most importantly, they’re also our neighbours, community

members, friends, fathers, sisters and sons and daughters. The video

speaks to the beauty that is found in diversity, and in B.C., we’re

lucky to have such diverse groups of people who enrich our communities

and bring their own unique understanding to the world. This is something

to be celebrated and protected.

As allies, friends and neighbours, and as leaders, we have a

responsibility to raise awareness and build understanding. We must

actively combat racism and hate in all its forms and work together to

create a more inclusive society where everyone feels safe and welcome

and has the freedom to celebrate and embrace their heritage without

fear.

I thank SOICS and the Okanagan Chambers COVID Response Coalition

for this important video and the work that they are doing to build a

more inclusive Okanagan.

[1:45 p.m.]

JAMES FRANCIS EDWARDS

R. Leonard: This Friday, on June 5, living legend James Francis Edwards,

better known as Stocky Edwards, turns 100 years young. When Stocky and

his wife, Toni, another noteworthy Canadian, enter the room at 888 Komox

Wing, Royal Canadian Air Force Association, the atmosphere immediately

changes. There’s a glow of electricity in the air and a buzzing spark of

pride and privilege to be in the company of this World War II hero and

natural-born leader.

He earned his wings when he was just 20 years old, in 1941, and

shot down a Messerschmitt on his first sortie in the African desert. He

flew, first, the Kittyhawk and then the Spitfire. He not only survived

373 sorties but is the highest-scoring flying ace of the Western Desert

Campaign, with 19 confirmed aerial victories and many other successes in

crippling the enemy’s air campaign.

He fought over Italy and first became a squadron leader there. He

was in the air over Normandy on D-Day, the day after his 23rd birthday.

He returned to Canada to speaking engagements to inspire a nation before

returning overseas in 1945, finishing his final mission in Germany a

week before their surrender.

He credits his successes to his prairie spunk, sharp eyes and

athletic abilities, along with good, clean living, prayerfulness and

plain luck, which earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross and bar, the

Distinguished Flying Medal and the Canadian Forces

Decoration.

After the war, he continued to lead and flew Vampires and Sabres

and CF-100s, one of the only World War II pilots to go on to fly jets.

He’s been inducted into Canada’s Aviation Hall of Fame, received the

Order of Canada and was knighted with the French National Order of the

Legion of Honour. He continues to inspire and to make this world a

better place.

Happy 100th birthday to a Canadian icon, Stocky

Edwards.

EARTH NINJAS

LITTER CLEANUP

VOLUNTEERS

B. Banman: I rise today to bring recognition to and commend the volunteer

work of the Earth Ninjas. I was not aware of the Earth Ninjas until a

constituent reached out to me and brought to my attention this small but

mighty group of volunteers. Their task and mission is to bring awareness

to roadside litter within their own community and other communities as

well. In addition, they roll up their sleeves and clean it up

weekly.

This team is led by Jocelyn Titus. She’s a stay-at-home mom who

originally started out by walking with her stepfather, David Brett. She

mentioned to me that David was her mentor and role model. They enjoyed

their time out together in nature but were disturbed by the amount of

roadside litter they encountered. Jocelyn started Earth Ninjas in March

of 2020 and began to pick up roadside litter in the area of Aldergrove

and the township of Langley. She convinced David to join in the task,

and many a Sunday the two of them would gather trash and took great

pride in leaving the roadside clean of litter.

Sadly, in September of 2020, David was tragically taken from this

world during a windstorm when a large limb broke and fell from a tree.

It would have been understandable for Jocelyn to have given up

collecting the roadside litter, but in David’s memory, Jocelyn continued

her passion — proving one person can make a difference. To date, the

Earth Ninjas have removed roughly 400 bags of trash.

Personally, I am saddened there are still people who toss their

litter out of their vehicles, and I am sure that this House is in full

agreement. I would ask folks to think before they litter, and if they

see it happening, please report it. Jocelyn does have a couple of needs.

She would like some more litter-pickup sticks, and she is always looking

for volunteers who want to join in the task. Would this House please

enthusiastically join me in celebrating the dedicated team and work of

the Earth Ninjas.

Ministerial Statements

BURIAL SITE OF INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

AT KAMLOOPS

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

Hon. J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today with a heavy, heavy

heart. Like all British Columbians, I was horrified to hear reports of

an unmarked mass grave on the grounds of the residential school in

Kamloops.

[1:50 p.m.]

Although there are no words that can describe how that feels for

survivors, words, it seems, must be spoken. Today this House has an

opportunity to look back over the history, the tragic history, that is

not just a moment in time but a live history of our situation here in

Canada and here in British Columbia.

Survivors of the residential school atrocities live it every day.

Their children are also living it, and their grandchildren are living

it. This is not something that happened in the past. It is something

that is going on right now, and the events in Kamloops over the weekend

bring that home graphically to all British Columbians, all Canadians

and, indeed, the international community.

Survivors most assuredly feel grief. They feel heartache, and they

feel outrage. Children taken from their homes and sent to who knows

where, without any notice, and told they could not speak their language.

They could not practise their culture. Oftentimes beaten. Oftentimes

sexually abused. Impossible to imagine in 2021. Yet that is the history

of the residential schools in our country.

The residential schools settlement agreement in 2007 led to the

establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission — which, in

2015, made 94 calls to action. Many of them are in the mandate letters

of ministers on this side of the House, as they were in the mandate

letters of the previous government. They’re there because these calls to

action are not just a nice thing to do. This is the least we can do to

try and do what we can to make amends for a period in time that lives

with us to this very day.

I still remember the first time I heard a residential school

survivor speak in public. I was with my colleague from Nanaimo–North

Cowichan. We were in the Koksilah school, just south of Duncan here on

Vancouver Island.

An Elder got up. It was a gymnasium. There were kids running

around. There was lots of noise. There was a moment of celebration. But

when the Elder got up, you could feel the energy in the room change.

Every person in there — young ones, other Elders, everybody — knew that

we were going to hear a story, a story that needs to be passed down, not

just for this generation but for future generations, about what happened

in Canada with Indigenous Peoples. When I heard the story, I made a

commitment, at that time, to do everything that I could.

As a student of history…. I have two degrees in history from two

universities, and I did not know about the atrocities of residential

schools from our public education system. I did not know. I learned it

in a gymnasium from a survivor talking to his kids and his grandkids

about what he had suffered.

I had the honour to be invited to Lower Post when I became Premier

by the Kaska, the Tahltan and the Taku River Tlingit and to be urged to

work with them to get the federal government to knock down the last

vestiges of the residential school in Lower Post. I heard stories there

from two Elders, particularly one who could not join us in the basement

because he could not walk down the stairs one more time to relive, one

more time, what had happened to him in that building.

At the time, the federal government thought it was a perfectly

serviceable building, with no need to replace it. Fortunately, the

federal government has changed their mind. On this National Indigenous

Peoples Day, my colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and I

will be going back to Lower Post — at the invitation of the Kaska, the

Tahltan and the Taku River Tlingit — to knock down that

building.

Although I was very much looking forward to that moment, it has

materially changed as a result of the events in Kamloops this past

weekend. It is not just a moment in history, as I often revert to, to

protect the emotions that we all have when we think about our children

being torn from us by the state and sent to who knows where to be told

to be good white people. It’s unimaginable to us today yet a very active

part of who we are as Canadians.

On the 21st of June, when I go to Lower Post to do my part to

knock down the history of residential schools, I’ll be remembering that

the Tk’emlúps and the Secwépemc have vowed to the people of British

Columbia and Canada that they will determine who is there and how they

passed away and will pass on those regrets back to the communities that

were affected.

[1:55 p.m.]

It’s a courageous move by those two nations. I thank them for the

burden that they’ve taken on. I want all of us to live with that burden.

That’s also the least that we can do. Our children were not taken away

from us. Our children were not told to not be who they were. That

happened to someone else, but our responsibility as legislators is to

make sure that the calls to action, hard-fought, are the least that we

can do.

On National Indigenous Peoples Day, if you have the good fortune

of being in a community with Indigenous people, if you have the good

fortune of having a relationship with Elders in those communities, sit

down, hear a story, and be reminded. Be reminded of the living history

of Canada.

We’re a proud people. We’ve done extraordinary things together,

but we’ve also done atrocious things together, and collectively, we have

a responsibility to face that head-on. After the discovery of a mass

grave in Kamloops, it’s more real now than ever before.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Premier, for those words.

I rise today with a heart filled with grief. Last week the member

for Kamloops–South Thompson and myself were left speechless at the news

that the remains of 215 children were found buried at the former

Kamloops Indian Residential School — by all accounts, 215 children whose

deaths were undocumented, 215 children with the indignity of an unmarked

grave and 215 families who will never be told what happened to their

child.

How do you put into words what the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc people —

and indeed, all Indigenous People across our province and country — are

feeling right now? In the past few days, many of us have remarked that

there are no words, as the Premier referenced as well, to describe this

horrific discovery. But we must find the words. We cannot continue the

silence that allowed this to happen in the first place, that continues

to impact generations of Indigenous families in so many ways. We must

find the words, and we must take action.

We must reaffirm our steadfast commitment to meaningful

reconciliation. Survivors must be heard. We need to work to find them

the closure and some peace. We can never forget or ignore the 215

children who lost their lives. Each death is an irreplaceable loss for

an Indigenous family. Each person mattered. Unthinkably, thousands more

also remain lost.

I want to say a word about the people in my community, in

Kamloops, where this tragic discovery was made. I need to acknowledge

the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc people and their strength through this

difficult process of confirming their worst fears. Kúkpi7 Rosanne

Casimir called it “a knowing in our community,” a feeling that sat heavy

in people’s hearts for many, many years, until it became a stark reality

last week.

Taking on this work, knowing the probable and very painful

outcome, has been and will continue to be no easy task. Yet Kúkpi7

Casimir and her council are providing strength to all in

Secwépemc’ulucw. The Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc language and culture

department conducted this careful work with the help of ceremonial

knowledge–keepers who ensured that cultural protocols were being upheld.

They have also been careful and sensitive in the way they have shared

this news of the discovery with the community, the media and the public,

because they know how hard this news will come to those who lost loved

ones and those who are still dealing with the effects of residential

schools.

Despite the deep heartbreak and grief felt by many, they are

continuing their work on the site, because last week’s findings may only

be the beginning of the story. I want to thank them for their

perseverance and their strength in the face of such tragedy and

loss.

Kamloops has an interesting history with Canada when it comes to

Indigenous issues. It was 1910 that the Laurier Memorial was

signed in Kamloops. Here we are 111 years later, and still no action on

that document.

Indigenous communities want to see action. It is long since past.

It is incumbent on all of us in this chamber to listen and support the

Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc in their efforts to ensure that their cultural

protocols are followed as they work to provide their lost children and

their families the dignity of a proper final resting place.

[2:00 p.m.]

This loss is felt by all British Columbians and all Canadians,

Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. We all have heavy hearts today, and

we must work together in a good way to heal these painful

wounds.

A. Olsen: I rise today to respond to this ministerial statement.

Today my family and the entire B.C. Green caucus team stand with

our relatives in the Interior. We wrap our arms around them in love. We

share their tears, and we let them know that we are here for

them.

Today I stand in this House to honour those who lost their lives

in the residential school system. The words that I’m going to speak

today aren’t easy, and they are direct. Like many of my peers, my

grandparents, my great aunties and uncles are survivors of the Kuper

Island residential school. I know that they’d want me here today

honouring the horrors that they lived through by demanding

accountability for them.

The resounding story that I heard from Indigenous leaders this

weekend is that this is the beginning. We know in our hearts this is the

beginning. For the last several years, our Crown governments and society

have believed that they have been doing the work of reconciliation.

After all, many of these stories have already been shared by residential

school survivors through the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission.

What needs to be addressed here is our response. Specifically, the

urgency and our reaction to what has been and what is being uncovered.

It’s not that we haven’t done anything. We’ve started the work. But have

we really moved as quickly as you would expect after hearing these

horrors?

We know that if these children were not Indigenous but, rather,

friends and colleagues sharing graphics agreeing that all children

matter. Yet deep down we know that, in our society, it’s just a fact. In

Canada and British Columbia, some children matter less.

We know that underneath the shiny, happy facade of Canada and

British Columbia, there lurks a grotesque and shameful past. For 30

years, my relatives have been sharing their experiences from these

despicable institutions. For 30 years, those stories have been hushed.

Our relatives have been told that Canadians and British Columbians don’t

want to hear their stories. They’ve been told to stop lying. They’ve

been told to stop embellishing.

There was a statement from this institution that noted the

unimaginable proportions of this tragedy. This is an incredibly

unfortunate characterization of the situation that we carry. For

Indigenous People, this story is not shocking, nor is it unimaginable.

This is the trauma our families have carried for generations.

When people ask me what our problem is, why we don’t pick

ourselves up, they haven’t wanted to hear the answer. As we continue to

grapple with missing and murdered Indigenous women and children, hanging

red dresses in recognition of our current reality, what is uncovered in

Kamloops is the stark reminder that this storyline is not new. It has

been in the imagination — indeed, in the nightmares — of our relatives

for the past 130 years. It is the terror that our ancestors have lived

with.

The only reason to call it unimaginable would be because these

institutions, these Crown governments, federal and provincial

governments, and the people that populated these chambers in the past

either haven’t been listening to our stories or they’ve cared less. It

is a reality in our country that some children have mattered less. These

are both terrible considerations.

There is nothing to imagine for those who have been paying

attention. Our Elders and our families have been sharing the grim

details of their experiences in residential schools for decades. That is

the record of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

[2:05 p.m.]

You don’t have to imagine it. You just have to believe it and care

enough to act with the urgency that you would if it was your child that

didn’t return home from school. It’s your kids going to school and not

coming home, not being there when their parents are there to pick them

up for Christmas, after the headmaster of the school so graciously

allowed them to go home for Christmas if their parents could find their

way to go and pick them up.

Duncan Campbell Scott, deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs

from 1913 to 1932, is often associated with saying: “Kill the Indian;

save the man.”

Joseph Trutch, whose name is on a plaque right outside that door,

British Columbia’s first Lieutenant-Governor following Confederation, is

quoted as saying: “I think they are the ugliest and laziest creatures I

ever saw, and we should as soon think of being afraid of our dogs as of

them.”

As historian Robin Fisher wrote extensively in “Joseph Trutch and

Indian Land Policy” of Trutch’s role in dispossessing Indigenous Peoples

of their lands, he did it quite extensively.

Residential schools were a critical tool in the process of “kill

the Indian,” in Scott’s words. Deliberately breaking up families by

forcing children into residential schools was a tool to expedite the

process of dispossessing Indigenous People of their lands and resources.

RCMP, church officials and Indian agents would show up to Indigenous

communities and forcibly remove children, taking them to these

deplorable institutions.

There have always been stories in our families of our relatives

that didn’t come home, the children that died and were buried there with

little or no notification to the families. Unfortunately, even as our

society has evolved and is more receptive to hearing and acting on these

awful stories, this provincial institution continues to be responsible

for unacceptable outcomes for Indigenous People.

I wish I could say that Indigenous children are no longer forcibly

removed from their communities. However, I can’t. I wish I could say

that Indigenous People were not dramatically overrepresented in

fatalities at the hands of police, the criminal justice system,

homelessness, suicide, addictions and drug poisoning, all statistics you

don’t want to ever be overrepresented in.

The accountability that I talked about earlier needs to be in this

chamber as well as outside. Our provincial government must accept

responsibility for the role that this Crown institution played in this

reprehensible history. This is work that should be advanced by all

parties in this chamber, work that could be done by the Select Standing

Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Let’s find ways to engage Indigenous

leaders as an assembly to inform our work, because what we’re doing is

not enough. We cannot wait for the federal government to act.

We must believe the survivors. We must stop referring to what we

know like we didn’t know it. We must stop pretending it was better than

it was. We must stop acting like we came by this wealth through honest

means, because we did not. This land and the resources this Crown

government depends on came from the dispossession of Indigenous People.

For decades, this provincial government has benefited from the lands and

resources that were secured through residential schools and other

disgraceful policies.

In honour of those children buried in unmarked graves, in honour

of our families who had a child who never came home from school, we must

make those resources immediately available for trauma and healing

services. All resources needed to restore our languages immediately

available. All resources needed to restore our houses of culture and

governance immediately available. It’s time for the representatives in

this chamber to stop saying how we can’t do this and start finding ways

that we can do it.

I’m so grateful for the incredible public response to this tragedy

facing our relatives in Kamloops and the Interior. I’m grateful for the

demands from our family and friends and neighbours to ensure that all

children matter. We can honour those calls by ensuring government

responds as if it were our child that didn’t come home from

school.

This is indeed a heavy burden, but it’s one we can all make

lighter if we carry it together.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thank

you.

[2:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I want to say thank you. Please join me in a moment of

silence.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Oral Questions

SUPPORT FOR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

SURVIVORS AND

FAMILIES

S. Bond: I want to recognize the Premier and my colleagues for the powerful

words delivered in this Legislature today. It sets the stage for the

work that all of us need to do. Everyone in this Legislature wants to

know what we can do together, listening to First Nations leaders to

support families and Indigenous people in our province.

I’m sure the Premier has had the opportunity to speak to First

Nations leaders over the weekend. I would ask him today to outline for

British Columbians how he plans to continue discussions with First

Nations leaders and what they have said to him about possible next steps

that can be taken to honour the lives of these children and support

their families.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank all members of this House for the solemnity with which we

are addressing these issues following on the revelations from Kamloops

from last week.

The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct. There is more

we can do. Our friend from Saanich North and the Islands inventoried a

host of issues that we could address right away.

Let me say again that for our part, this side of the House, in the

first mandate letters that we issued in 2017 when we came into

government, focused specifically on the calls to action within

provincial jurisdiction that were laid out in the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission from 2015. My ministers have been diligently

working on that, as they did and as all of us did when we unanimously

supported the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples —

another massive step forward.

But again, not…. As my colleague from Saanich North and the

Islands will remind us, as will my friend from Skeena and the member for

Mount Pleasant, words are fine. Words are fine. But what impact are we

going to have on the families that have been affected by this? And it’s

not….

With great respect, I don’t mean to diminish in any way the

extraordinary work of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc peoples here, because

they are now the epicentre of a national tragedy. The power of their

ability to bring people together is so critically important. I know that

my two friends from the region and the Solicitor General and others will

be working to make sure that everything that we can do to get to the

bottom of how this could have happened….

As my colleague from Saanich North said, this was not a surprise,

because it’s been talked about not just in Kamloops but in Lower Post,

on Kuper Island and in other places across British Columbia and around

the country. This is a cathartic moment and a moment that we should all

seize so that we can do everything in our power to relieve the pressure,

relieve the strain.

I think it would start by ensuring that our K-to-12 system does a

comprehensive job of telling the story of Canada, not with rose-coloured

glasses, but with the reality which it deserves.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I want to thank the Premier for his answer. We all know that

the damage is not confined to one community, but it invokes a

devastating part of our national history. Right across British Columbia

and our country, families are feeling devastation, anger and

hurt.

[2:15 p.m.]

We know that there is a national crisis line and that British

Columbia has a First Nations and Indigenous crisis line in place. But

again, I would hope the Premier could share with us what additional

resources are in place or could be immediately put in place to provide

direct support to First Nations people as they grapple with their grief,

their loss and all of us face the likelihood that many more difficult

days lie ahead.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for her question. She’s absolutely right

that we need to look at the next weeks and months and, indeed, years and

recommit to British Columbia the true story of who we are, how we got

here and where we collectively want to go together.

When we unanimously passed the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous Peoples by bringing in DRIPA in this institution, we sent a

message to the world that we are going to turn history upside down,

return resources to peoples who have been on this land for millennia.

We’ve been working through the treaty process. We’ve been working

through reconciliation agreements. We’ve been trying to build capacity

on a whole host of issues.

The member will know this full well from her extensive period in

executive council that governments have been trying for some time to get

ahead of these issues, but we have universally failed. Broad steps. Bold

actions. But does that impact people on the ground? Does that impact

those survivors who are living today with a…? Chief Harvey from the

Upper Nicola Band, who I have met several times…. To hear him say in the

public press how this was bringing it all back to him again — friends

that they thought had gone home that didn’t go home.

These are powerful, powerful feelings that we are having. Imagine

what is happening in Indigenous communities across this country right

now. We have an obligation to release resources where we can, to improve

people’s lives, and we’re committed to doing that. I know that the

member opposite will hold us accountable for that. I look forward to

it.

REPATRIATION OF INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

BURIED AT

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS

E. Ross: To the Premier and the other leaders in here that spoke about the

events unfolding in Kamloops: thank you for your words.

With all due respect, now is not the time to talk about UNDRIP or

mandate letters from four years ago. It’s not time for a stump speech.

This tragedy is affecting Canadians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

alike. People are crying. Put aside the politics for a second,

everybody.

The confirmation of an unmarked grave of 215 children has revived

memories for many First Nations people. It confirms what many survivors

from all over B.C., from 203 bands in B.C., have long said: there is a

multitude of children who never made it home. For most of the history of

these schools, the practise was not to send the bodies of students who

died at schools to their home communities.

My question. Can the Premier tell us, tell the province — tell the

people of British Columbia, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike —

specifically what will this government be doing to work with the 203

First Nation communities in B.C. to repatriate these

children?

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said in response to an earlier question, we’re working with

the Secwépemc and the Tk’emlúps to try and work with them to get to a

place where we can share this information and actually return people to

their traditional territories. I appreciate the passion with which the

member brings these questions. I was not bringing politics in at any

time, and I know he wasn’t either.

This is a moment for British Columbia to understand and fully

absorb the magnitude of the stain of residential schools on all of our

history. But most importantly, as my friend from North Saanich said,

this is an opportunity to try, in some modest way, to feel the pain and

anguish that exists in Indigenous communities right across this

province, right across this country. That’s what we can hope to bring

from this if we are non-Indigenous.

But as representatives in this place, collectively, we shall work

with the bands in Kamloops and others across this province to bring true

reconciliation, to bring all of the calls to action, which were put

together not by us but by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to

make sure that those calls to action are real, substantive and have an

impact on people’s lives.

That’s the commitment I can make. Again, I know the member will

hold me do that.

[2:20 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemen­tal.

E. Ross: Correction: this is not my passion. This is my life. My parents,

uncles, aunts, friends, acquaintances from other communities — from 203

communities in B.C. This is not just a Kamloops issue. Children from all

over B.C., from every single community, were sent to residential schools

all across B.C. and Canada. This is not just the burden of the Kamloops

people. They are to be commended for bringing this to light — for what

we always were suspicious about, based on the stories of people like my

parents. I look forward to everyone in this chamber taking the time to

listen and act accordingly. Because I do agree that the time for action

is long past. It’s long past.

I uncovered this in 2004. Everybody, at some point in their life,

heard a story about this. The time for action is now, while the whole

world is shocked and while Canadians want to know what’s next. So for

those who survived residential schools, for their families and friends

who had to listen to the stories of the survivors and, of course, for

the voices of the children that we will never hear….

For the Premier, I hope he agrees, as I hope everybody in this

House agrees, that we must do everything we can to return these children

to their homes.

Hon. J. Horgan: I very much thank the member for Skeena for his question and the

way he presented it.

I will commit to this House that working with the Secwépemc and

the Tk’emlúps — whatever steps we can take, whatever resources need to

be brought to bear, working with Indigenous Nations across this province

to see what we can do to bring all these things together.

As I said, the minister and I will be in Lower Post. It will be a

powerful moment for those northern nations, and I suspect that there

will be nations, as well, who will be bringing the call in the days and

weeks ahead to build out the plan that the member is seeking for us to

deliver today. It’s not there. It will be.

With his help and with the help of other members of this House,

I’m confident that we can bring together a plan that all of us can be

proud of, as a modest step to address the challenges that have been in

place long before many of us came to this House. Certainly, that does

not relieve our obligation to do everything we can, going forward, to

make sure that we can do redress appropriately, and that’s what we will

do.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

AND CONSERVATION

FUNDING

A. Olsen: I came equipped today with a different question about a different

subject, but my hope is that this can be the response to these stories

over the weekend — can be not just a response from the ministers, but

also a response from this Legislative Assembly. We have the ability to

do that.

Over the past few weeks, the world’s attention has become focused

on Fairy Creek, because thousands of British Columbians are showing up

to protest this provincial government’s lack of protection of these rare

and endangered ecosystems. Two weeks ago I raised the Auditor General’s

report saying that B.C. is not doing enough to follow its own policy on

conservation. Just after that, I highlighted the mapping that a trio of

scientists have done showing where the most endangered old forests are

and where it needs to be immediately deferred from cutting.

Today I’d like to add that there is a significant amount of

federal money on the table, money that B.C. could use to conserve these

forests and support communities through transition. The federal

government has put $2.3 billion on the table to expand protected areas,

and that could be a game-changer if the NDP chooses to take

it.

To government, my question is to the Minister of Forests. Will she

commit to using every federal dollar that is on the table to protect

these endangered old forests and to stop the battles playing out on the

ground today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. It’s very true. He knows full

well that I am intimate with the area, Fairy Creek and environs. It’s my

home community. I know it intimately. I know the Pacheedaht, and I also

know the Huu-ay-aht, and I know the Ditidaht. It is their

territory.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’ve talked about this in this Legislature. At this time, more

than ever, we need to acknowledge their rights and title to that

territory — and sovereignty, in my opinion, over those lands. Having

said that — and I got a movement from the member — I look forward to,

perhaps, a discussion, either in here or offline, about that.

Specifically to the question of federal resources, I, too, have

been hearing promises of federal resources. I’ve been asking about those

federal resources. I’m hopeful that they will turn up, but I’ve heard of

federal resources in the past, as well, and they have not shown up. I do

understand that there are opportunities here. We have been pursuing that

in government-to-government discussions, through my Intergovernmental

Relations Secretariat, as well as in direct conversations with federal

officials.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the Premier highlighting the complexity of the

situation that we have in these particular areas, although I think it’s

fair to say that the response of British Columbians, the response of

people in southern Vancouver Island to Fairy Creek or to specific

locations is actually a response about the protection of these last

remaining ecosystems — these last remaining endangered ecosystems, the

protection of old growth.

The federal government put $2.3 billion in their budget — it may

or may not be there, and may or may not be available immediately — but

in the recent B.C. budget, there wasn’t anything — no money. It’s in the

federal budget; it’s nowhere to be found in the provincial budget. No

money to implement the recommendations of the old growth review panel,

which the Premier promised to implement — fully, all recommendations —

in the last election.

TJ Watt from the Ancient Forest Alliance says that because of the

federal investment, the B.C. NDP “has been handed the keys to ensure

that much of the grandest, most endangered old-growth forests can be

protected.” The federal government is going to have the money on the

table. Is the B.C. government going to chase that money down?

Again, my question is to the Minister of Forests. What specific

actions is she taking to find out if that money is available and, if

not, to go to the Treasury Board to ensure that there’s money that

British Columbia is putting on the table to follow through on the

commitments that the B.C. NDP government made to British Columbians in

the 2020 election to implement all of the recommendations —

specifically, recommendation No. 6 as a first step — to defer these

sensitive ecosystems?

Hon. J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, my colleague will know that it was this government

that appointed the old growth commission. We were happy to receive the

report — in fact, so happy that we said we would embrace all of the

recommendations and implement them. The member will know that there were

significant deferrals, some 200,000 hectares immediately, because there

had been discussions with Indigenous Nations about that, and approval.

In fact, requests were made to do so. On the other areas, like Fairy

Creek, that discussion had yet to take place and is ongoing.

Again, I appreciate the member’s passion. I am passionate about

old trees, and this will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me — no

surprise whatsoever. But there are complex issues. The member

understands that. I know that members from the official opposition

understand that. If we’re going to make a seismic change in how forestry

is done, we need to have buy-in from everyone.

That’s why tomorrow the Minister of Forests and I will be issuing

an intentions paper that will lay out not just how we will address old

growth but how we will address forestry across the province. The time is

now to take action, when the public’s attention to these issues is at

its highest. There have been times in our history when forestry has been

neglected and forgotten. It is certainly not being neglected and

forgotten today. That is a good thing, in my mind.

We need to take the opportunity that this moment in time presents

to us: a very capable report, lauded by all those who’ve had the

opportunity to read it. The government is committed to implementing it.

I think the stars are aligning. We’re going to have good news tomorrow

on the intentions paper and more good news about old-growth logging on

Vancouver Island later this summer.

FUNDING FOR

SPINAL CORD INJURY

RESEARCH

S. Cadieux: This is National AccessAbility Week, as we heard earlier, and the

minister has also proclaimed this week AccessAbility Week here in

British Columbia. This year’s theme is “Leaving no one behind.” We’ve

seen the work that has been done and is being done in British Columbia

To the Premier, how is the government supporting research and

innovation, like spinal cord research, that helps people with

significant disabilities lead healthier, more active lives in our

communities?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: Let me just begin by saying to everyone that I hope that they have

an opportunity to participate in National AccessAbility Week, which is

obviously trumpeted across the country and, in particular, in British

barriers that we need to remove in order for everyone to be able to live

the most inclusive life in British Columbia and society.

I want to just thank the member for Surrey South, in particular,

for her advocacy in this role for many years. I just want to recognize

her work.

When it comes to specific issues around investments in research, I

would suggest that my ministry doesn’t engage in that particular type of

activity, so I would direct her question elsewhere. But I’m pleased that

she’s recognizing and recognizes the importance of all British

Columbians to pay attention to AccessAbility Week this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: I’ll thank the minister for his kind words. But I appreciate if he

doesn’t have the answers, perhaps he should not be the one taking the

questions.

The Premier should be aware that the Praxis Spinal Cord Institute

is a global leader in research on all things spinal cord injuries,

including treatments for pressure source. They are based in Vancouver.

The organization has had its base operational funding of $3.3 million a

year provided by the B.C. government since it was founded in 2010. Their

funding renewal request has been with government for the past year, but

two months into this new fiscal year, Praxis has not heard if their

funding will be renewed. The funding was not renewed as of March

Will the Premier reinstate this funding for spinal cord research

today?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that she and I actually met when neither one

of us was in this House. We were working with Rick Hansen to raise

awareness of spinal cord injury and to bring forward fundraising

opportunities for the very research that she’s talking about. I know,

certainly, her focus on this. I know that’s a passion of mine as

well.

I apologize for pushing it to the minister responsible, but I

budget question. I will go back and talk to the Minister of Finance and

the Ministry of Health, where I believe the dollars initially come from,

and see where we can get to. I’ll come back to the member directly on

that question.

D. Davies: Just to follow up on my colleague’s question, Praxis has not heard

anything from the government about the fate of their funding. Funding

has been provided to this organization since 2010 and needs to be

renewed this year — or should have already been renewed. The future of

this organization is at risk. It includes 50 highly skilled research

jobs. It has no other source of operating funds.

In honour of National AccessAbility Week, will the Premier be able

to commit today to give Praxis the funding that they do need to

survive?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. As I said to his colleague, I

will go back to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, find

out the status of the funding, and I’ll get back to the member for

Surrey South. I’m sure she’ll pass it on to you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: Thank you, Premier. There are 6,000 people that live in B.C. with

spinal cord injuries. In fact, hundreds of people each year get a

catastrophic injury like this. These injuries cost over $270 million

each year.

I guess to follow up on my previous question regarding getting us

the answers that we’re looking for, will the Premier also, while he’s

having that conversation, direct his minister to immediately work with

Praxis and to ensure that they receive long-term sustainable funding

that they need to carry on their work?

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said to the member and the one previous, I’ll go back,

discuss this with ministers and staff and get an answer to the

opposition as quickly as I can.

APPLICATION OF

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION LEGISLATION

TO I n BC INVESTMENT CORP.

T. Stone: Recently the Premier created InBC, a $500 million high-risk

venture capital scheme, using public funds.

[2:35 p.m.]

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner sent a very

strongly worded letter to the government, calling out its plans to

shroud this high-risk investment fund in secrecy by a number of things,

not subjecting InBC to the province’s FOI legislation. But when we asked

the Premier about it the other week, the Premier hadn’t even read the

letter.

The question is this. Has the Premier now read the letter, and

will he listen to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and subject

his high-risk venture capital scheme to FOI?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. As the member knows, we

canvassed this in great length during the third reading.

Similar to the previous government — when they created the B.C.

Immigrant Investment Fund, they chose not to put it under FOI rules at

that time. I suspect they did that because they heard similar concerns

from the private sector about sensitive commercial information and how

that would be handled and made public.

That being said, the letter has been received. We are engaging

with those in the private sector, those in the investment community, to

assess what their views are. We’ll have more information once those

consultations are done.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a

supplemental.

T. Stone: This is a Premier who promised a transparent government, who is

now asking it to spend half a billion dollars on a high-risk venture

capital scheme. No public access to the business plan for InBC. No

public access to impact score cards on each investment. No subjecting

InBC to freedom-of-information legislation in British

Columbia.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner has been very clear, in

his letter, that the government’s excuses cannot be justified. The

letter points out that the B.C. Investment Management Corp. is far

larger and is subject to FOI.

The question, again to the Premier, is this. Why is the Premier

ignoring the clear demands of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

to subject his government’s high-risk venture capital scheme to

FOI?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I think it’s a little rich from this member giving lessons

on FOIs to anyone. But I will take his question on notice. As I’ve

already shared with him multiple times, we have taken advice from those

in the private sector. They’ve said that there were some

concerns.

We’ve seen the letter that’s been received just recently from the

independent office. We’re going to continue to consult with them and

also consult with the private sector to ensure that all of the issues

that they may have, have been addressed. We’ll have more information on

that in a timely future.

P. Milobar: The letter from the Privacy Commissioner came out before the

legislation was finished in this House. The Citizens’ Services Minister

was questioned on this in estimates while that bill was still in front

of this House. And the Premier was asked about this several weeks

ago.

It’s not that complicated of a concept. The Conflict of Interest

Commissioner makes it very clear in his letter that InBC, the $500

million investment scheme, should be subject to freedom of information.

In fact, the Premier committed to looking at that letter and making a

decision quickly. That was a few weeks ago.

Again to the Premier, is InBC…?

Interjection.

P. Milobar: The Premier seems to think it was days ago. I’d remind the Premier

we actually weren’t in the Legislature last week, so it’s been a couple

of weeks.

Again, not a complicated ask by the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner — has the Premier made a decision on whether or not the

InBC investment scheme will be subject to freedom of

information?

Hon. L. Beare: The minister of jobs, economic development and investment has been

quite clear that transparency and accountability are going to be

critical for this organization. InBC’s legislation requires those annual

reports and its performance on these investments. The minister then has

to table the reports to the Legislative Assembly and make those reports

public.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, the members are referring back to the immigration fund. The

Jobs Minister has made it very clear that this is a continuation of this

fund and that we have put the appropriate measures in place. In fact, I

have a letter here from 2010 from the previous Minister of Citizens’

Services that outlines that “to respect legal confidentiality,

agreements in place with fund managers operating….” It goes on to say:

“…the fund transparencies achieved through operational reporting under

the BCIIF annual report.”

I’d also like to clarify that the source of the BCIIF’s capital

fund is not taxpayer funds but, rather, sourced from immigrant investors

through a federal program. The key there being that public transparency

is through the annual reporting. This was a decision made by the

previous Minister of Citizens’ Services, when asked about the

immigration fund. We are working with the Privacy Commissioner. The Jobs

Minister is ensuring that the accountability and transparency is

embedded in this fund through annual reporting, and we’re going to

continue on that good work.

P. Milobar: With respect to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, this isn’t

about 2010. This is about direction from the Conflict of Interest

Commissioner in 2021. This is about the Privacy Commissioner saying that

we should have, in B.C., a $500 million investment scheme, subject to

FOI.

In fact, the Minister of Citizens’ Services could make that

regulatory change with the stroke of a pen, doesn’t need to rely on the

Jobs Minister and doesn’t even actually have to rely on the Premier to

make that happen.

I guess the question to the Minister of Citizens’ Services is: has

the Minister of Citizens’ Services, given that it’s her responsibility

to make sure there is freedom-of-information access on a wide range of

issues…? Based on the letter from the commissioner, it seemed that the

Citizens’ Services Minister actually was wanting this to fall into

freedom of information — based on the wording in the letter.

Did the Minister of Citizens’ Services advocate for InBC to be

subject to FOI, or did she turn a blind eye to the request from the

commissioner?

Hon. L. Beare: It’s great. I have another letter from 2010 here, from the

previous Minister of Citizens’ Services that very clearly outlines, in

response to the request of the Information and Privacy Commissioner at

the time, that the process for adding new or existing

entities…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. L. Beare: …begins with the ministry responsible submitting a request. Once

the request is received, it would be included in the ministerial

regulation for such purposes and that it would be a broad overreach for

the Minister of Citizens’ Services to go against the Jobs Ministry of

the time.

Again to the members opposite, we’ve been consulting…. The

Minister of Jobs has been consulting with community. We have met with

the Privacy Commissioner. We have ensured that all the transparency and

accountability are in place. I think it’s just really important to

actually restate what the previous Minister of Citizens’ Services said —

that public transparency is achieved through operational reporting under

the annual report. That is what we are doing.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour of tabling Office of the Ombudsperson

special report 47, A Cautious Way Forward: Fairness Principles for

Public Service Providers Regarding the Use of COVID-19 Vaccine

Certification.

I also have the honour of tabling two reports pursuant to the COVID-19

Related Measures Act.

Hon. S. Robinson: I table the B.C. Assessment Authority 2020 Annual Service

Plan Report , as required under

section 16 of the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Petitions

G. Lore: Today I table a petition from thoughtful constituents of

Victoria–Beacon Hill concerned about the impact on pets and animals, those

with auditory issues and the dangers to young children, as well as increased

pressure on police. They’re advocating for the banning of fireworks, except

for the use by professionals.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 10, Municipal

Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call estimates debate for the

Ministry of Labour.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the continued estimates debate for

the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. When that is finished,

then we will also call at this time the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. J. Osborne: I’m pleased to rise today in the House to speak to this important

piece of legislation. When COVID began, it challenged many aspects of

local democracy. People couldn’t safely participate in person for

important decision-making or voting in by-elections.

The pandemic also presented a number of unexpected financial

pressures for local governments. The business of local government had to

continue, so a number of extraordinary measures were put in place to

support local governments during this difficult time so they could

maintain effective, local decision-making and to maintain the financial

health of the local government system.

The amendments in this bill acknowledge that a number of these

measures need to be continued, not only to provide necessary transition

and continuity for some local government matters but also to ensure

local governments have the tools they need to deliver services and

engage people in the process of government. Some of these measures are

currently covered under various ministerial orders that are part of the

COVID-19 Related Measures Act, or CRMA.

We’ve listened to local governments and learned what is important

to them. Based on these learnings and experiences, the amendments also

add new, permanent authorities, where appropriate, to ensure that local

governments have the powers they need to effectively govern their

communities in any scenario. Further, they also add tools in

ministry-specific statutes to allow the ministry to manage a number of

local government matters in light of evolving circumstances related to

the current pandemic and in the event of any future extraordinary

scenario.

The proposed amendments to the Community Charter, Local Government

Act and Vancouver Charter will provide new, permanent authorities for

local governments to be able to hold electronic meetings, or e-meetings,

as well as electronic public hearings, or e-hearings, while maintaining

important transparency safeguards. This will provide local governments

the ability to offer citizens a mix of in-person, hybrid or virtual

meetings to meet a wider range of people’s needs.

We’re hearing that being able to participate in public hearings

and meetings electronically is more accessible and equitable for many

people who face barriers to attending in person, whether they’re single

mothers, people who are caregivers, people without access to

transportation or those with limited mobility.

[2:50 p.m.]

Looking back to the beginning in spring 2020, when I was mayor of

Tofino, I know firsthand how local governments found it increasingly

difficult and sometimes impossible to adhere to legislative requirements

for regularly scheduled meetings and required public hearings for land

use matters to be held in person.

A ministerial order, under the

Emergency Program Act, was issued to override legislated limitations and

to authorize local governments to be able to hold e-meetings, where

in-person gatherings were unsafe or impossible due to the pandemic. The

temporary authorities enabling all local governments to hold e-meetings

will continue for the foreseeable future, under the ongoing authority of

Ministerial Order M192, which is currently part of the COVID-19 Related

Measures Act.

Once the circumstances related to the pandemic have eased, these

new permanent authorities will be brought into force to enable local

governments themselves to choose what mix of in-person, hybrid and

virtual meetings meets the needs of their specific community needs. For

e-meetings, the proposed amendments continue to safeguard good

governance principles, such as public transparency and public

participation, by requiring local governments to specify, by bylaw, when

e-meetings will be held electronically and how the public can

participate in those electronic meetings. Allowing for virtual meetings

with appropriate safeguards is an example of how we’ve listened to local

governments, and we’re acting on the lessons learned during the

pandemic.

We’re also taking this opportunity to include minor amendments in

this bill that will also permanently address a number of operational

barriers for improvement districts that came to light during the

pandemic. Amendments to the Local Government Act will provide

improvement districts more flexibility for the timing of their annual

general meetings and the terms of office for local trustees. They’ll

also remove the requirement for bylaws to have a seal so that bylaws can

be sent electronically.

As a result of the pandemic, local governments also faced urgent

financial pressures. In response, a number of one-time unique financial

measures were put in place to support local governments. These are

currently contained in Ministerial Order M159 under CRMA, which will

expire July 10.

This bill includes amendments to the Municipalities

Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), or MEVA, to move the suite of 2020

COVID-related financial measures and the corresponding repayment

obligations into a more permanent legislative framework. This will

ensure that the effect of these one-time measures continue as originally

intended when they were put in place for 2020 and provide certainty for

local governments.

These MEVA amendments will continue the obligations requiring

local authorities that borrowed from their reserve funds in 2020 to pay

for operational shortfalls to repay the borrowed amount by December 31,

2025; continue the obligation for local authorities to repay

revenue-anticipation borrowing incurred in 2020 by December 31, 2021;

and continue bylaws made under Ministerial Order No. M159 to postpone

the tax sale of properties from fall 2020 to fall 2021.

The pandemic has demonstrated the need to have specific, targeted

legislative tools that can be used to quickly respond to urgent and

pressing scenarios that pose challenges for the local government system.

This bill also adds two new targeted and limited ministerial regulation

authorities to the Community Charter to allow the minister to be able to

address urgent and unique financial challenges faced by local

authorities in special circumstances, such as an emergency scenario or a

sudden community crisis that affects financial liquidity.

This legislation also adds a targeted and specific ministerial

regulation authority in the Local Government Act in relation to local

elections. Over the course of the pandemic, the ministry has been

working with local governments to mitigate risks and contribute to safer

processes for electors and election officials. Since September 2020,

over 30 ministerial orders have been put in place to support COVID-safe

local by-elections and assent votes in various communities. The new

ministerial regulation authority will provide a more robust and

effective means of managing local elections processes in special

circumstances.

Finally, this bill will also remove legislated limitations on

electors who are permitted to vote by mail ballot in local elections,

including by-elections. Amendments to the Local Government Act and the

Vancouver Charter will repeal the rules that currently limit mail ballot

voting only to persons with a physical disability, illness or injury or

to persons who expect to be absent during voting. Removing these

limitations will allow voters who are vulnerable, who may be required to

self-isolate or quarantine, or do not feel comfortable voting in person

to participate in local elections processes.

[2:55 p.m.]

Bill 10 provides an array of amendments that ensure that local

governments have the authorities they need to continue to manage through

the ongoing and evolving circumstances related to the pandemic and any

future extraordinary scenario. The amendments are supported by the Union

of B.C. Municipalities and the Local Government Management Association,

as well as the city of Vancouver. We’ve also been mindful of the

requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

as we’ve developed this legislation.

In conclusion, the proposed changes will give local governments

more tools and better supports, as well as appropriate permanent

authorities, to ensure that they have the powers they need to

effectively support their communities in any scenario. The amendments

adding new tools to the ministry-specific statutes will ensure that the

minister is able to capably respond to various matters, in light of the

evolving circumstances related to the current pandemic and in the event

of any extraordinary scenario.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you and all members of

the House. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the continued

debate today on the second reading of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Minister, before you sit down, would you please move

second reading of the bill.

Hon. J. Osborne: I should have started by moving second reading. I move that the

bill now be read a second time.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister.

T. Stone: It gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill 10. I

appreciate the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, someone

that I’ve known for many years and have tremendous respect for. So I

look forward to the really specific questions that we will get to in the

committee stage of this bill. But for the purposes of second reading, I

think I’ll start here.

It’s always great to see the government taking steps to improve

the public’s access to the civic process and to encourage greater

participation in that process, whether in municipal elections or local

government meetings. It’s indeed a fundamental right of British

Columbians and Canadians to exercise their voting rights and to be able

to participate in fair and equitable elections and democratic processes

at all levels of government.

This bill contains a number of measures. Again, we’ll get into a

lot more detail on these in the coming days. It allows municipalities

and regional districts to hold virtual and hybrid meetings and public

hearings in addition to in-person meetings. That’s a good

thing.

It expands eligibility for mail ballot voting in local government

elections, making it open to everyone rather than just those individuals

who are absent or have an illness, an injury or a disability. That’s

good.

The bill provides for greater flexibility with the timing of

annual general meetings and trustee terms for improvement districts. It

establishes ministerial authority to make regulations for borrowing in

emergency situations in elections administration matters and the

repayment of debt for revenue-anticipation borrowing by local

governments to be delayed for up to a year.

Local governments borrowing from their reserve funds to pay for

operating expenses — exceptions or modifi­cations can be made if

special circumstances may impact an election, a by-election or a

referendum. The bill pro­vides for continuity of extraordinary

financial measures and corresponding repayment obligations under

COVID-19 Ministerial Order M159, which is set to expire on July 10,

There are a number of other items, but this is just a snapshot of

some of the more pertinent pieces that I think represent a good step

forward. We certainly agree, in the official opposition, that municipal

governments really deserve to have every tool possible to ensure maximum

flexibility to engage through bylaws, hybrid and virtual meetings and

proceedings, if they feel it will expand access to the democratic

process for their community members.

The COVID-19 pandemic has indeed shown us why these proposed

changes are useful and achievable. I will say, from a local perspective

in Kamloops…. As the minister mentioned, when she was the mayor…. She

was the mayor of Tofino at the time. Everything seems to be a bit of a

blur for the last while. She was living it. The minister was living this

as an elected mayor in the district of Tofino.

I certainly know the city of Kamloops…. I remember getting the

phone call from our mayor, saying: “We have a big problem here. We don’t

know how we’re going to continue to function as a local government. We

have critical things that need to get done, critical decisions that need

to be made.”

[3:00 p.m.]

Yet the legislative and the regulatory framework that is in place

today, which never contemplated a pandemic such as the one that we have

just been going through…. It really tied the hands of local governments

behind their backs and made it very difficult to move with the speed

that was often needed, from a bylaw perspective, or to hold meetings,

all the while understanding that there is a requirement for public

access and media access to a lot of those meetings.

It was important, back in March. I think it was March 26 when the

government brought in a number of ministerial orders, including

suspending states of local emergency, enabling local government bylaw

officers to enforce the provincial health officer’s orders related to

business closures and public gatherings and, thirdly, to provide the

ability to hold more flexible meetings to expedite decisions.

It was the right thing to do back then. All of us remember well

how we really didn’t know…. Certainly in March, we didn’t have any idea

what was coming next month, a few months later, let alone tomorrow. It

was critically important to be able to move with speed and to move with

confidence at the local level.

Some of the amendments outlined in this legislation make permanent

the temporary measures established in Ministerial Order M192, which

exempts local governments from statutory requirements related to the

conduct of meetings and public hearings and the passage of

bylaws.

However, in the official opposition, we think it’s important to,

very respectfully, remind the government and the minister about the

contentiousness of that ministerial order, M192, and the Ombudsman’s

report from June 2020 related to it, considering M192 will remain in

force until the COVID-19 emergency authorities are lifted. Very, very

important to be aware of those concerns that were raised by the

Ombudsman at that time.

A little bit of background on the Ombudsman’s report. Again, this

was in June of 2020. The Ombudsman, Jay Chalke, released his report

entitled Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Measures: Two

Ministerial Orders Made Under the Emergency Program Act In Response

To the COVID-19 Pandemic .

The Ombudsman’s report investigated two ministerial orders, M098

and M139, later to be replaced with M192, as I’ve already mentioned.

Importantly, the Ombudsman concluded that these orders are contrary to

law. They should have been invalid, since they overextended the

authority of government.

The Ombudsman’s exact words were this: “The issue we investigated

is whether those extra powers include the ability for the minister to

suspend or temporarily amend B.C. statutes, and we concluded the

minister does not have that authority, even in an emergency.”

Now, the Ombudsman did make a number of recommendations, five

recommendations, to government in the report, including introducing

legislation as soon as possible to validate the orders and to not make

any further orders amending statutes unless the Legislature passes

legislation authorizing such orders. Unfortunately, the government’s

response, which came in the form of a letter from the Solicitor

General….

I should just back up. The Solicitor General did revise

Ministerial Order M139 into M192, but his letter in response to the

Ombudsman’s report was concerningly dismissive. In his letter of

response, the Solicitor General said: “We are of the view that the

Ombudsperson Act does not provide jurisdiction for you to conduct an

investigation into the ministerial orders in question.” In other words,

we don’t recognize your authority here.

[3:05 p.m.]

That’s very, very concerning. These ministerial orders and the

resulting Ombudsman’s report are another unfortunate example of this

government’s penchant for overextending its authority and dismissing the

checks and balances that are in place to ensure that government remains

open and transparent and that government’s actions are grounded in

law.

With this bill translating many of the measures outlined in these

ministerial orders into permanent law, we certainly hope that the

minister realizes that to maintain public trust, government must proceed

with greater accountability and consideration for B.C.’s laws and

democratic processes — again, even in states of emergency.

With that, I appreciate the opportunity to offer comments today on

Bill 10, on behalf of my opposition colleagues. As I said earlier, we

very much look forward to discussing and debating,

section by section,

this bill further in committee.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I invite the minister to close the

debate on second reading.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite for the comments. I look forward

to committee stage next.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: Now 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 10, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, 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. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2021.

BILL 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill includes amendments to the COVID-19 Related Measures

Act, or CRMA, which was passed in July 2020. CRMA is designed to allow a

smooth transition at the end of the state of emergency declared under

the Emergency Program Act by avoiding an abrupt end to provisions that

respond to and alleviate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

CRMA also

provides authority for targeted protections from civil liability related

to the pandemic to ensure that, where appropriate, fears of civil

liability will not unduly discourage activity that promotes the

province’s pandemic response and recovery.

Recognizing that the pandemic has continued and evolved, these

amendments would extend CRMA’s repeal date from July 10 to December 31,

2021. Amendments would also streamline processes for reporting to the

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly regarding regulations and

ministerial orders made in relation to the pandemic and clarify several

cross-references and existing regulation-making powers.

The proposed amendments to the Family Law Act clarify that family

violence, as defined in

section 1 of the Family Law Act, does not

include an intention to harm a family member. As the definition of

domestic or sexual violence in subsection 52.5(1) of the Employment

Standards Act and the definition of household violence in subsection

45.1(1) of the Residential Tenancy Act are modelled on the definition of

family violence in the Family Law Act, amendments to these acts are

proposed to mirror the amendment to the Family Law Act.

There is a separate housekeeping amendment to remove the

parentheses from six references in the Family Law Act to the Provincial

Court (Family) Rules. This aligns with the updated title of the new

Provincial Court Family Rules.

This bill also includes an amendment to the Clean Energy Act

related to B.C. Hydro’s Burrard thermal facility in Port Moody. This

1960s natural gas–fired electricity generation plant was one of the

largest point sources of greenhouse gas emissions until it was

decommissioned in 2016.

[3:10 p.m.]

The site provides an ideal opportunity for industrial

redevelopment. However, the Clean Energy Act currently prohibits B.C.

Hydro from considering opportunities to sell or lease all or a portion

of the site because the facility is designated as a heritage asset. This

bill would remove Burrard thermal from that list and allow B.C. Hydro to

consider proposals for alternative uses of the site. Local First Nations

have been consulted on the amendment, and those that have responded are

supportive.

In addition to creating benefits for B.C. Hydro’s customers,

alternate use of the site could support post-COVID economic recovery,

which is why we are introducing this legislative change now.

Amendments to

section 26 of the Motor Vehicle Act will enable the

Insurance Corp. of B.C., ICBC, to refuse to issue drivers’ licences and

vehicle licences for persons who have outstanding fines under the

COVID-19 Related Measures Act or the Emergency Program Act. A total of

1,857 COVID-related violation tickets were issued between August 21,

2020 and April 23, 2021. As of April 17, ICBC has processed 1,373 of

these tickets, for a total of approximately $956,000 owing to the

province. Only 13 percent of this debt, or approximately $120,000, has

been paid.

ICBC is currently sending unpaid COVID-19 fines to collections

after 30 days, instead of the usual 12 months. However, debt collection

remains low. Enabling refuse to issue will provide an additional debt

collection tool that can be used to ensure that COVID-19 rulebreakers

are held accountable by paying their fines.

Minor housekeeping amendments to

section 26 of the Motor Vehicle

Act will include…. References to repealed statutes will be removed. An

omitted cross-reference will be added, and gendered language will be

replaced with gender-neutral language.

Finally, this bill also contains a validation and confirmation

provision for statute correction regulations, which made minor

housekeeping corrections.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney for the

summary here at second reading

stage of the provisions contained within Bill 11. As is frequently the

case with a bill of this sort and the various statutes that it purports

to amend, the House will undoubtedly conduct most of its work in

committee stage, posing questions to the Attorney and/or colleagues with

responsibilities for some of the statutes that are impacted by these

amendments.

For my part, I can say that it is my considered opinion that the

House appreciates and understands that, confronted by the ongoing

effects of the COVID pandemic, the rationale, in principle, at least,

for the extension of the application of the COVID-19 Related Measures

Act and the provisions that it contains through to the conclusion of the

calendar year, which is what is proposed in the bill before us, makes an

element of sense.

We will want to pursue with the Attorney specifically the

significance of so doing and whether, in the intervening now 11 months,

he and the government have anything to report with respect to the

application of the provisions of the original Bill 19, COVID-Related

Measures Act. Specifically, the Attorney has mentioned the targeted

protections from civil liability that were provided by Bill 19.

The

House, I think, would benefit from a description and information from

the government and the Attorney about the degree to which those

protections have been applied, necessary or otherwise utilized. Those

are, of course, questions more properly put to the Attorney during the

course of the committee stage debate that will follow.

[3:15 p.m.]

Bill 11 contains, as we’ve just heard, some amendments to the

Family Law Act and the Residential Tenancy Act, dealing specifically

with the definition of “family violence.” The Attorney, I hope, will be

in a position, in response to questions at the committee stage, to

advise the House of the government’s rationale for including the change

and to what degree the absence of intent from the present definition

represented a constraint on the ability to afford protections to family

members.

Again, these are questions that the Attorney, I’m sure, will be

anxious to deal with in committee. We will, performing our function as

opposition, want to ensure that there are no unintended consequences

when one considers the myriad of unique circumstances that can apply in

something as complex as a family relationship or a tenant-landlord

relationship.

Having said all of that, of course, the House, I expect, is united

in its belief that everything can and should be done to protect people

from any displays of family violence, particularly the case with respect

to the Family Law Act. We will pose those questions to the Attorney

General and look forward to receiving his replies and more detailed

descriptions of the amendments contained in Bill 11, sections 4 and 5 —

particularly

section 4 — to the Family Law Act and, in

section 6, to the

Residential Tenancy Act.

Again, as we’ve heard, the additional amendments proposed in Bill

11 to the Clean Energy Act and the Motor Vehicle Act, in the interest of

time, I will encourage. I know my colleagues with specific opposition

responsibilities in those areas will have a few things to say here, at

second reading, with respect to the matters that they hope to canvass

with the responsible ministers at the time we get to committee

stage.

The Attorney has referred to the deletion of Burrard thermal from

schedule 1 of the Clean Energy Act, and my colleagues will, in a moment,

comment on the potential significance of that and on the nature of the

questions that the government should anticipate receiving at committee

stage.

Similarly, the use of ICBC as a collection agent with respect to

COVID-related fines is something that my colleague from Prince George

will have some thoughts on and will express them momentarily and, I

know, will pursue with the responsible minister at committee

stage.

I don’t think there are any surprises with respect to the course

that the debate will take here in second reading, or in committee stage.

To facilitate the further, more detailed exchange in committee, the

opposition will certainly facilitate the passage of this Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act through second reading and into that committee

stage for a more detailed examination.

M. Morris: You know, it has always been a bit of a hassle collecting fines

and money owed to the Crown, for a number of different reasons here. One

of the things I’ll be exploring with the minister when we get to this

particular point under the Motor Vehicle Act is whether or not they’ve

explored the use of the private sector in assisting in this regard. In

the numbers that the minister spoke about — 13 percent of the total

fines that have been issued so far have been collected — it leaves quite

a big hole on the side owing.

[3:20 p.m.]

We have a number of organizations in the province — the bailiffs,

a number of agencies — that are probably in a pretty good position to do

that. Having said that, it’s always good to see government evaluating

the systems that we have in place right now and making adjustments to

the processes as we move forward with different legislation.

Having spent over 30 years in law enforcement, I know full well

the propensity of some members of our population to incur fines and pick

which laws they’re going to obey and which ones they’re not going to

obey and ignore the consequences of that. The number of fines that are

outstanding probably add up substantially every year.

But what we have in this province and in this country is a

constitution, and the rule of law prevails. If somebody, any member of

society, doesn’t agree with the law that’s been enforced against them,

they have a choice: they can pay the fine and pay the penalty that’s

related to that, or they can challenge it in court and go through the

due process that is laid out in this province and across the country

that will allow them to determine whether that law is just. So merely

deciding what law they’re going to obey or disobey — there are

consequences to that.

I look forward to talking about this a little bit more during the

committee stage, asking the minister some questions around the options

that we have for collecting fines in this province.

I’ll just momentarily speak about domestic violence. I do

appreciate where the minister is coming from in presenting the

amendments that this bill outlines. But again, there will be a few

questions. I’m sure my colleague that just spoke earlier will probably

highlight some of those during the committee stage.

I look forward to popping the hood open on this one and seeing

where it leads.

T. Shypitka: Speaking to the part of the bill now, the amendment in Bill 11

pertaining to

schedule 1 of the Clean Energy Act, it identifies removing

Burrard thermal generating station from the list of B.C. Hydro’s

protected heritage assets. The list of 36 B.C. Hydro assets that were

placed under protection from being sold through the Clean Energy Act,

basically, was to solidify B.C. in retaining its electricity

self-sufficiency.

Burrard thermal was built one year before I was born. I’m not

going to say what year that was, but it was a long, long time ago. It

was a natural-fired power plant, as the Attorney General has stated. At

the time, it provided about 9 percent of the province’s energy needs,

almost exactly, coincidentally, what the Site C project represents

today.

It was placed under heritage protection by the B.C. Liberal

government in case it was needed for emergency power generation use.

Burrard thermal did provide emergency power until about 2016 to the

Lower Mainland. Now it continues to provide voltage support and

stability for B.C. Hydro’s transmission and distribution of electricity

in the Lower Mainland.

If the asset is to be sold off, it would be good to know a couple

things, as this is a public asset paid for by the taxpayers of British

Columbia. There’ll be some questions in committee stage for sure: the

transparency of the sale, to whom it’s sold, conditions and intended

use.

What was the level of participation with First Nations and the

obligations to consult and accommodate First Nations? What will the

proceeds of the sale be used for? What does this mean for electricity

self-sufficiency in our province? Does it jeopardize emergency

provisions if needed for failing electrical systems?

What happens to the shortfall of grants in lieu of taxes from B.C.

Hydro to the city of Port Moody as well as the loss of school taxes on

the property, which is remitted back to the province? This will be about

$300,000 annually.

I’d like to see this asset repurposed to facilitate a similar

role, backing up the grid for emergency power with new cleaner

solutions. I believe the power that has replaced Burrard thermal comes

from the Mica generation station, well over 700 kilometres away. So

there are some issues with that on stability of emergency power use in

the province.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’ve seen a lot of things happen around the world: equipment

failure, geomagnetic storms can happen and then climate change, of

course — firestorms, high winds, ice storms. We’re reminded quickly of

what happened in Montreal in 1998. It was one of the worst natural

disasters in Canadian history. Close to four million people were out of

power for weeks on end. Thirty-five people died. There were thousands

injured, and 600,000 people, including seniors, were moved out of their

homes to hotels and other shelters that had emergency backup. It was a

real shocker for a lot of people. It was devastating. It came at a cost.

It was a cost of about $5½ billion in insurance claims and things like

that.

We don’t have to go farther than that. Last February, in Texas and

throughout the States and even northern Mexico, we had winter storm Uri

that swept across. Power outages cost about $195 billion and affected

ten million people. It was quite a weather event.

I worry about some of these things, going forward, but these are

the things we’ll get into in committee stage. As the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie said, we’ll pop the hood off on it, and we’ll take a

look at it in a deeper dive.

With that, I have no more comments on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:26 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

R. Glumac: Sometimes the smallest change can have the biggest impact. This

small amendment to the Clean Energy Act, to remove Burrard thermal from

the list of heritage assets, could have far-reaching implications in the

fight to combat climate change. This amendment will allow B.C. Hydro to

pursue alternative uses for the decommissioned Burrard thermal site. It

has been underutilized since being shut down by the B.C. Liberals in

Burrard thermal operated as a fossil-fuel-burning plant for over

50 years. While running at full capacity, it could generate enough

electricity to power 10 percent of the province. I remember hearing

stories of the pollution that was produced by that facility, especially

in its early years. In its last few years, it was operating strictly as

a standby plant, providing emergency power or peaking power for a few

days in the winter, when demand was at its highest.

When it was shut down, the city of Port Moody lost an annual $1.3

million tax grant, which was an incredible financial burden for the

community. That single facility made up 2 percent — close to 3 percent,

actually — of Port Moody’s tax base. This amendment would allow for new

opportunities to be considered for those lands. This could not only

restore the lost tax revenue for the community, but it also will support

providing good-paying jobs in the community and a strong post-COVID

recovery.

[3:30 p.m.]

Ever since I was elected in 2017, I could see a brighter future

for this facility. I could see how we could move away from the

fossil-fuel-based past into a sustainable clean energy future. A year

after I was elected, in 2018, we introduced CleanBC in an effort to

shift homes, vehicles, industry and business off of fossil fuels towards

renewable energy. Because of these efforts, B.C. is becoming a

destination for new investment in carbon-reducing technology and

lower-carbon products. The world needs new clean technology, and Burrard

Thermal lands is a great place to develop that technology.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Already, B.C. is a leader in clean energy innovation. There are

companies doing innovative work in many areas, such as renewable energy,

energy management, energy efficiency, clean transportation, hydrogen and

fuel cells, and improving industrial processes to make industry cleaner

and greener.

In fact, there are about 300 clean tech companies in this

province, employing over 16,000 people. B.C. is a home to a quarter of

the clean tech companies in Canada and always has a large presence on

the list of Global Cleantech top 100 companies, which lists the top

companies in the world with the most innovative and promising ideas in

clean technology.

The clean tech industry generates over $3 trillion of economic

activity per year globally. Some of the companies that are doing this

work are looking for a place to scale up their operations or create a

demonstration project to prove out their technologies. B.C. has the

right kind of environment to promote this kind of innovation, and we’re

providing historic investments in climate action through

CleanBC.

In Budget 2019, we committed $900 million to CleanBC. In 2020,

another $420 million was committed. Then, with the introduction of

StrongerBC, our economic recovery plan, we committed a further $220

million and, in this budget, another $500 million. That’s a total of

over $2.2 billion committed to shifting towards a low-carbon

economy.

CleanBC has set the foundation for a strong and sustainable

economic recovery and a bright future for all British Columbians. In

addition, we’re creating a bold new strategic investment fund called

InBC. This $500 million fund will be used to support B.C.-based

businesses to drive forward innovation, sustainability and inclusiveness

and further the goals of CleanBC.

The time is right. The time is right to find opportunities. The

time is right to further the goals of addressing climate change. The

time is right to unlock the potential of Burrard Thermal. Already, many

companies have been approaching B.C. Hydro to inquire about leasing the

lands. This includes everything from hydrogen development to carbon

sequestration projects.

I’ve spoken to some of these companies myself in my previous role

as Parliamentary Secretary for Technology. I’ve been working closely

with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation to help

bring this amendment forward today. Last year I hosted the Premier in

touring through the facility, and the potential was obvious. There is no

other site like this in B.C., with its close proximity to high-voltage

clean electricity, its water and port access, its industrial zoning and

location away from residential areas.

I’m excited to stand today in the House and support this bill. The

possibilities that this legislation unlocks are very exciting. I’m a

hopeful person, but hope alone doesn’t change the world. I know that the

next generation is facing an uncertain future with climate change. I

know that we need to take every opportunity that we can to support an

economy that moves away from carbon. We need to support innovation to do

that. One breakthrough in clean technology could change everything. That

breakthrough could happen on the Burrard Thermal lands.

[3:35 p.m.]

G. Lore: I’m very pleased to rise virtually today for what is, hard to

believe, my first time speaking to legislation in this House. While life

has delayed me a little from being here, I am compelled to stand in

support of this legislation.

While the title Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, may do

little to grab attention, its content, particularly as it relates to the

Family Law Act, directly affects the lives of British Columbians.

Amendments to the Family Law Act reflect our belief that there are no

conditions under which violence in the family, whether physical, sexual,

psychological or emotional, is acceptable.

The changes clarify that when it comes to determining whether

behaviour constitutes family violence, it is simply irrelevant whether

the person responsible intended to harm their family member. This

definition affects protection orders and impacts court decisions that

determine what is in the best interests of a child. This means that

physical violence directed at a partner is never acceptable, regardless

of a perpetrator’s expressed rationale.

These changes mean that emotional or psychological abuse related

to a child’s sexual orientation, gender or gender expression is

violence, even if the caregiver makes claims of wanting what is best for

a child. This is the exact circumstance that led to this change being

necessary. This change will ensure protection orders are available and

court decisions can protect children if caregivers use violence under

the guise of care, discipline or teaching.

When the limited definition was made clear, we acted quickly to

incorporate this amendment into the statute. Those at risk of and those

targeted for gender-based violence and family violence cannot

wait.

Amendments are also proposed to change the definition of domestic

or sexual violence in the Employment Standards Act and the definition of

household violence in the Residential Tenancy Act. The changes to these

definitions will mean that those accessing leave from employment or who

are leaving their homes to seek safety will be able to do so.

I’m proud to voice my support for these important changes and

thank the Attorney General for his quick action to ensure support for

survivors of family violence.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Government House

Leader, the Solicitor General, to close debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank members for their thoughtful comments during the

second reading debate. I know the Attorney General will look forward to

answering questions during committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 8.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I believe you need to commit the bill to a Committee of

the Whole House for the next sitting after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Sorry. My mistake. So enthusiastic about moving my own

bill.

I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Now I call Bill 8, committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — PUBLIC SAFETY AND

SOLICITOR GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:39 p.m.

On clause 1.

M. Morris: I’m only going to have a couple of questions on this particular

bill, but they will pertain to all of the clauses in the bill

itself.

The Chair: We’ll just be on a recess for a short moment. Thanks,

everyone.

The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. Morris: I’ll make a couple of general comments that are applicable to

clause 1, and I’ve got a couple of questions that will be applicable to

clause 1. Depending on the answers, we might be able to get to clause 60

in due haste here.

I’ve gone through the bill with a fine-tooth comb. It pretty much

reflects the existing regulations that have to be replaced and, of

course, the Vancouver liquor component that’s bringing Vancouver in line

with the rest of the province. I do want to ask a question regarding

clause 1. Being that the minister is aware that illegal cannabis retail

is taking place on First Nations reserves, did the minister consult with

First Nations, with respect to the declaration act, regarding all of the

clauses under this particular bill?

[3:45 p.m.]

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

As there’s no change to any existing government policy or

regulations, there’s no requirement to in fact consult under DRIPA. The

regulations stay the same and as they are.

That being said, we did notify all treaty nations, and we did

notify the FNLC and their staff. There were no concerns or issues raised

with what we were bringing forward.

M. Morris: Just a follow-up to this, then. There are some substantial…. As a

previous enforcement officer, I like what I see in the bill on what the

police have available to them.

As there are a number of illegal or unlawful cannabis operations,

reportedly, on many of our First Nations reserves, and this bill will

affect their ability to continue on in those operations in a legal

capacity, I’m wondering whether your ministry has touched bases with any

of the First Nations that are currently operating outside of this bill

to advise them what the consequences would be to continue to operate

once these provisions are added to the cannabis act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The community safety unit is in regular contact with First Nations

right across the prov­ince. When First Nations were notified of

these changes, they were informed that this legislation now goes from

the regulations that were, in essence, there: “This is how the

legislation works, and this legislation now makes them permanent.”

What’s clear is that what may have been perceived as being temporary is

in fact now permanent.

M. Morris: The second question I have, then, other than the ones I may ask in

respect to any answers I get here: can the minister confirm that this

bill — and, subsequently, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act — is a

law of general application and is enforceable on First Nations

reserves?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is.

M. Morris: There were no red flags in the development of this particular bill

moving forward? There’s no hesitation with respect to enforcement by the

community safety unit in enforcing these on First Nations lands across

the province?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That would be correct. We don’t have any red flags around these

changes.

M. Morris: Chair, that’s the extent of the questions that I have. You know,

it’s a very strong bill. It certainly adds some strength to the Cannabis

Control and Licensing Act for the province here. I look forward to the

diminishment of illegal cannabis sales on First Nations reserves and

throughout the province here.

From clause 1 to clause 60 — I don’t have any issues with

it.

The Chair: I will just ask, to be completely fair and to make sure

everyone gets a chance…. If there are any other questions between 1

and 60, now’s the time. Otherwise, I’m going to call a vote on

those.

Clauses 1 to 61 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without

amendment and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — PUBLIC SAFETY AND

SOLICITOR GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 8, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act,

2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 7, Electoral

Boundaries Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just take a short two-minute recess to make sure that all

the ducks can be put in order again. Thanks, everyone.

The House recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 3:57 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

M. Morris: Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be 40 years old next year.

When it came out in 1982, I’d already been policing for nearly ten

years. I remember the debate, both for and against the changes,

wondering what all the fuss was about because I thought we had one of

the best charters in the first place.

Over the past 40 years, I’ve taken a keen interest in Charter

challenges, of course beginning with criminal law, because that’s what I

was immersed in at the time, and listening to the other constitutional

challenges that came along. I can confirm that after my 40 years of

witnessing the transitional jurisprudence and legislative changes, we

do, indeed, have one of the strongest constitutions in the

world.

But the floodgates to challenging every law in Canada were opened

at that particular time, and I remember that. Just about everything we

could think of was being challenged. Thousands of cases during the early

decades of the Charter defined our future, all premised upon a single

section of the Charter that states that the Charter “is the supreme law

of Canada” and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the

Charter “is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and

effect.”

The laws around electoral boundaries were not spared and fell

under the microscope of the courts and the Supreme Court of Canada for

clarification and refinement. The courts have determined that in Canada

and, of course, in British Columbia, our electoral system is not based

upon one person, one vote, but based upon the relative equality of

voting power in each electoral district.

In a Supreme Court of Canada case referenced as Dixon, a B.C. case

from 1989, the court determined that departure from the ideal of

absolute equality may not constitute a breach of

section 3 of the

Charter so long as the departure can be objectively justified as

contributing to better government. Of course,

section 3 of the Charter

gives every citizen the right to vote.

[4:00 p.m.]

Some have argued that anything other than one person, one vote

would be an infringement of that Charter right, but the Supreme Court of

Canada has determined that an infringement of a Charter right can be

justified if pressing and substantial concerns are met. The court has

ruled that the objectives of ensuring that geographical and regional

concerns are reflected in electoral boundaries to the end of ensuring

better government, they’re valid and meet the pressing and substantial

test.

When the Dixon case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, the

Attorney General for B.C. cited five factors that justified giving

greater weight to rural votes. First was special interests of rural

residents, such as environment, conservation, transportation and

resources, all vital to the survival of British Columbia.

The environment is critical for everything that happens in this

province. Of course, conservation, of which I’m a big fan.

Transportation — we have thousands of miles of highway. We have 700,000

kilometres of resource roads in rural British Columbia. And, of course,

our natural resources. We are a province blessed with a diversity of

natural resources that sustain the economic fabric of this

province.

The second was difficulties in communicating with electors

scattered throughout large areas. Some of us, you know, myself…. It

probably takes about three or more hours to drive from one side of my

constituency to another. Others have greater distances than that. But in

today’s world and today’s time, of course, we have other critical

factors of communication. A lot of our communication is web-based. If we

don’t have the capacity, in rural British Columbia, to enter into the

various websites to access government services, then that’s a hindrance

for those particular communities.

The third was the wider range of problems with which rural members

are required to deal: our snow storms, getting from point A to point B

and spring freshet flooding. A lack of services in many of the areas is

paramount.

Of course, that goes into the fourth reason, which was lack of

access to medical in rural areas. Northern Health covers 75 percent of

the province and is the only health district in British Columbia that

does not offer cardiac services to 80 percent of the people. My

mother-in-law had a heart attack a number of years ago, and she had to

be medevacked down to Vancouver for cardiac services. Then we had to

drive down to pick her up and bring her home again. Those are things

that people that live in the urban areas of British Columbia don’t

really have to consider.

That leads to number five, which is the limited availability of

resources and advisers to rural members of the public. The court, at

that time, in Dixon, agreed that all those factors related to regional

interests or geographical concerns were valid.

As I said, the world has changed since these five factors were

recognized over 30 years ago. The 25 percent population deviation

recognized in our current legislation was premised on a recommendation

made nearly 35 years ago by Judge Fisher, the commissioner who conducted

the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia in

1988. In my review of Judge Fisher’s reports, I could find no formula or

metric involved in making that 25 percent determination. It appeared

that it was more arbitrary in nature than anything else.

The population of B.C. has increased substantially over the past

35 years, with much of the growth attributable to people immigrating

from other areas of Canada and countries around the world. Most

immigrants to our great province move into the 21 municipalities that

comprise the Metro Vancouver area.

Metro Vancouver has 51 percent of B.C.’s population but occupies

0.3 percent, one-third of 1 percent, of British Columbia’s land mass.

The 13 municipalities within the capital regional district have 9

percent of B.C.’s population while occupying only 0.2 percent, 0.2 of 1

percent, of B.C.’s land mass. In other words, 60 percent of British

Columbia’s population inhabits one-half of 1 percent of the land mass of

British Columbia. Pretty substantial.

[4:05 p.m.]

Many of the urban populations in these two jurisdictions…. It’s

the residence for these newcomers to our province, and they have little

to no knowledge of the areas of our province outside of Metro Vancouver

and the capital regional district.

I’ll go back. I was out for a meal in Vancouver here, two or three

years ago, with a relative. We were being served by this young person —

young person to me, anyways. They were probably around late 20s, early

30s. She asked where we were from, and the person I was with said they

were from Yaletown. They had a pretty good conversation about the

various areas in Vancouver to live.

She asked where I was from, and I told her I was from Prince

George. She said: “Where’s Prince George?” I said: “Well, it’s about 500

miles north of Vancouver.” She asked me if there was a road to Prince

George. This individual…. We had a nice chit-chat with her. She had been

in Vancouver for about eight years, and she had moved in here from

Toronto. So there is a lack of understanding of what British Columbia is

and how big we are. A lot of people don’t fathom the size of British

Columbia.

But as with most people, interests tend to be regional in nature,

except instead of hundreds scattered around the province who share

regionally focused issues, there are hundreds of thousands located on

less than half of 1 percent of our land mass sharing regionally focused

issues, most likely issues that are focused within one half of 1 percent

of the land mass. When you look at Metro Vancouver with 21

municipalities, several MLAs within that complete area also represent

almost similar issues amongst those 21 municipalities.

As our dense urban populations realize greater economies of scale,

on a greater scale from the services of those 21 municipalities and the

13 municipalities in Vancouver, a lot of the services that are provided

in those regional areas are provided by the municipal governments — many

of the bridges, many of the other facilities that we have here and

transit. B.C. Transit, as well, provides a lot of the services to those

communities. B.C. Transit services like SkyTrain and the Canada Line

make it possible for people to get around without even owning a vehicle

or having a driver’s licence.

The economies of scale on this 0.5 percent of the land mass that

holds 60 percent of our population…. The economies of scale make it

possible for entities like cellular service providers, fibre optic and

high-speed internet services to provide competitive superior products to

what we get in rural British Columbia. The economies of scale relating

to professional services like medical specialists, laboratories,

engineering, advanced education, counselling and others that are limited

or completely absent in many areas of British Columbia….

I’d like to once again reference the Dixon case. It was one of the

first cases the Supreme Court of Canada heard that challenged

section 3,

the guarantee of the right to vote, in British Columbia here. The court

recognized and accepted a list of core values that form part of the

guaranteed right to vote under

section 3.

The first one is the right not to be denied the franchise on the

grounds of race, sex, educational qualifications or other unjustifiable

criteria; the second, the right to be presented with a choice of

candidates or parties; the right to a secret ballot; the right to have

one’s vote counted; the right to have one’s vote count for the same as

other valid votes cast in a district; the right to sufficient

information about public policies to permit an informed decision; the

right to be represented by a candidate with at least the plurality of

votes in a district; the right to vote in periodic elections; and the

right to cast one’s vote in an electoral system which has not been

deliberately engineered to favour one political party or another, which

is the basis of this bill and the subsequent act.

The court added a tenth core value in the Dixon case: that

equality of voting power is fundamental to the Canadian concept of

democracy. The equality of voting power.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Supreme Co