Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 29, 2024

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 422

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)

Community organizers and organizations in Vancouver–West End

S. Chandra Herbert

Mining industry

T. Shypitka

Steven McCleneghan-Leonard and organ donation awareness

R. Leonard

White Rock Lawn Bowling Club

T. Halford

Connect Fest and power of inclusivity

K. Chen

Surrey schools book ban case and work of Surrey Pride Society

E. Sturko

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and community safety issues

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

Drug decriminalization program and role of law enforcement

E. Sturko

Hon. J. Whiteside

Hon. M. Farnworth

Administrative costs and issues in health care system

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Drug decriminalization program and safe supply initiative

B. Banman

Hon. J. Whiteside

Management of safe supply and diversion to illicit market

T. Stone

Hon. J. Whiteside

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

Reports from Committees

Children and Youth Committee, annual report,

2023-2024

J. Sims

M. Bernier

Petitions

T. Shypitka

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

M. Lee

A. Olsen

E. Ross

Hon. N. Cullen

Hon. G. Heyman

Hon. M. Rankin

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act

Hon. L. Beare

C. Oakes

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Safe Access to Schools Act (continued)

S. Robinson

Hon. N. Sharma

M. Lee

T. Halford

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. J. Osborne

A. Walker

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2024

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: We have a special guest up in the gallery here today, the president of

the BCGEU, who has been the president for the last decade.

Stephanie Smith is an early childhood educator by training and a

fierce advocate for social justice. She has served the people of British

Columbia well for a decade in her role as president. She was also the first

president to come from outside core government in representing the head role

at the union there.

I understand she’s not standing for re-election, and I just wanted to

take the opportunity to thank her for her service to British Columbians over

the past ten years.

Thank you very much, Steph, and welcome to the House.

[1:35 p.m.]

K. Falcon: We all work here, and we spend a lot of time away from families. I’m

thrilled today that I’ve got my family here joining us. So I’ll be on good

behaviour today, I can assure you.

Interjections.

K. Falcon: Now, come on, people. Work with me here.

I’ve got my wife, Jessica, my daughters, Josephine and Rose, and my

mother-in-law Moira here today.

I hope the House would help make them welcome.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’d like to welcome the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, with Iqra

Azhar, Latih Sahran and Mina Khan. We also have representatives from the

National Council of Canadian Muslims, and Mohammad Asad Gondal, president of

the B.C. Muslim Association. They’re here meeting with MLAs and

ministers.

I would like to thank them for their advocacy and welcome them to the

chamber today.

S. Bond: The gallery is full of special people today that I am extremely proud

to be able to introduce on behalf of my colleagues from Prince

George–Mackenzie and Cariboo North.

We’re delighted to have with us two councillors from the city of

Prince George, who work tirelessly every day to serve our mutual

constituents. We’re very glad to have in the gallery today Kyle Sampson and

Garth Frizzell, both elected multiple times in the city of Prince George.

They are joined by very capable staff at the city of Prince George: our city

manager, Walter Babicz, and the acting director of administrative services,

Eric Depenau.

Later today representatives from the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation will

be joining the delegation. I’m very grateful to the ministers who’ve agreed

to meet with the representatives from Prince George. I know those meetings

will be constructive, and I appreciate them making the time to meet with our

delegation.

A. Singh: I’m going to echo the Attorney General’s introduction and also

introduce my good friend Bal Chima, who is also here with the delegation. I

met with the delegation earlier today to talk about the rise of Islamophobia

and the rise of anti-Palestinian sentiment in the province.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Sister Fatima, who had some really

compelling stories.

If you have the time, please meet with them.

T. Shypitka: It’s a great day here in the Legislature. It’s Mining Day. We’ve got

lots of representatives from associations, industries and suppliers

here.

Michael Goehring from MABC.

Doug Brown, Teck Resources.

Keerit Jutla, AME BC.

John Davidson, FLSmidth.

John Mullally, Newmont.

Sean Magee, Taseko.

Brent Murphy, Seabridge Gold.

David Lortie, Anglo American.

Vesta Filipchuk, NorthWest Copper.

Luke Holdstock, New Gold.

Jim Zadra, Avanti Kitsault.

Alec Morrison, Mining Suppliers Association of B.C.

Tyler Bowman, Finning.

Chris Tucker, Skeena Resources.

Malinda Kellett, Artemis Gold.

Sadeed Hassan, Hudbay Minerals.

Ed Beswick, Giga Metals.

Jodi Shimkus, HD Mining.

Kevin McCormick, A.J. Forsyth, Richard Weymark, Taseko

Mines.

Brian Abraham, independent.

Chris Link, Avanti Kitsault.

Stephanie Tan, Teck Resources.

Jason McCleery, SMS Resources.

Kristine Howe, Ascot Resources.

Colin Smith, CertainTeed Canada Inc.

Stephen Barraclough, Defense Metals.

Justin Himmelright, Skeena Resources.

Jonathan Buchanan, AME BC.

Diana Walls, Rio Tinto.

I’m almost out of breath here, but would the House please welcome all

these fine folks from the Mining Association across B.C.

Hon. J. Osborne: I can’t possibly replicate that from across the aisle, so I won’t. No.

But it is Mining Day today in the Legislature, and we do have a number of

representatives here with us, which is absolutely fantastic, because we all

know that B.C.’s mining sector is well positioned to grow significantly in

the coming years, thanks to the very hard work of these good

people.

It takes a lot to go from staking a claim to opening a major mine.

This is a sector that continues to amaze me with their dedication and their

technical expertise, their hard work and their skills. The sector employs

over 35,000 people here in the province of British Columbia, and they are

attracting global investment every single year. We know that if we are going

to achieve our global climate goals, we need this sector, and we need B.C.’s

critical minerals to be a part of that.

[1:40 p.m.]

I won’t list the names because the member for Kootenay East did such a

fabulous job of doing that.

Please help me make this delegation feel very welcome, and if you

haven’t had the opportunity to meet with some of them, please take advantage

of the opportunity to do so.

Hon. B. Ma: I am very pleased to introduce to the House today four guests hailing

from my home community of North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

We have Aurelia Ulanday, who is an educational program coordinator

with Pathways Serious Mental Illness Society. They provide free one-on-one

and group support programs, educational programs and advocacy. She is here

today with her husband, Albert Ulanday, an electrical engineer with VTech

Technologies. They are both here with their two children, Gabriel and

Lumina, who attend grade 3 and grade 2, respectively, at Capilano Elementary

School.

Gabriel is a talented soccer player, working towards FIFA 2026, and

Lumi has the auspicious title of being baby Azalea’s favourite

playmate.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very

welcome.

D. Davies: I’m not sure if she saw me today, but we connected eyes very briefly.

I’d like the House to welcome Judy Fox McGuire, who’s our…. I want to say

component 6 vice-president of the region.

I also want to thank her for organizing yesterday’s memorial event for

workers, which I attended, and I want to thank her for all of the work that

she does in the community.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

E. Ross: In the House today, we have a good friend and a strong supporter,

Ralph Weick, and his daughter Sydney, who are joining us all the way from

Prince Rupert today.

Ralph is a firefighter with Prince Rupert fire rescue for over 20

years. He’s also the current president of the federal Conservative Party of

Canada. He’s a past president of the North Coast B.C. United Riding

Association. He’s a dedicated father of two.

Unfortunately, he’s packing up and leaving for Alberta. He just can’t

afford it here in B.C. anymore, so a big loss to us.

Would the House please welcome Ralph Weick and his family.

M. Starchuk: A couple of weeks ago I stood in the House to speak and announce my

participation in the second annual “So You Think You Can Drag?” contest.

Ember Sparks was a hit as the first sitting MLA in Canada to perform drag on

stage at a charity event that raised $21,000 for Surrey Pride, $15,000 for

local charities.

Today joining us in the audience are the members of the Surrey Pride

Society. Today we’re also hoping that the celebration that we did two weeks

ago is slightly less spectacular than today’s QP.

Joining us is vice-president Jasmine Broeder, secretary River Glen,

co-founder Rob Loewen and co-founder and president Martin Rooney.

Would the House please join me in making my guests feel most welcome

to the chambers.

Hon. R. Singh: In the House today, I see a dear friend sitting in the gallery. It’s

Tanveer Ebrahim. Tanveer is the previous director of the Nisa help line, and

she has done a lot of work in the community spreading awareness about

Islamophobia.

Would the house please make her feel very welcome.

A. Walker: Today is a great day. It’s such a privilege to have my staff here from

the constituency office: Raani Desai, Zoe Compton, Jennifer Scott, Thommy

Hutson, Geraldine Newton and Rebecca Ladd. When constituents come to our

offices, often it’s not the best day, but my staff are always there with a

smile and competence. They go above and beyond.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. B. Bailey: Today, in the precinct, we have Amazon visiting us. I want to tell the

story of a small-town B.C. boy done well. Of course, that’s Jesse Doherty,

who grew up in Port Mellon, B.C., and went off to make his tech career in

Seattle. He is now leading Amazon, their largest Amazon site, building

software right in Vancouver. More than 4,500 employees are making

high-quality software and such an important contributor to our tech

sector.

I really want to welcome them to the House and thank them for their

great service.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I noticed in the gallery the National Council of Canadian Muslims

introduced by the Attorney General, some of the names. I had the opportunity

to meet with the delegation, and I just want to say thank you for educating

us.

I also noticed Bilal Cheema in the gallery, who just showed up, a good

friend. I think it has a lot to do with his father, who I have a lot of

respect for. He is learning, still, from his dad, as I am still. His dad is

a wonderful man and great community leader, always there to give advice and

work with those who are working for the community.

Bilal, thank you for coming.

Also, Asad Gondal is from the BCMA in my riding. He always is there

every time we go to the masjid.

Welcome to the House as well.

Please give them all a warm welcome.

F. Donnelly: Today we have a group of students from my riding of Coquitlam–Burke

Mountain. Twenty-seven grade 10 students are here from Gleneagle Secondary

School. They’re accompanied by their teacher Michelle Hernandez and a number

of adults. They’re going to join us through QP.

Would the House please welcome them.

S. Bond: We also have in the gallery today someone who works tirelessly on our

behalf. She has worked in this building. She has lived in Prince George. She

is a mom of two incredible kids, has a wonderful husband. She is the

executive director of B.C. United. I am thrilled to know her from her time

in Prince George and here.

Please join me in welcoming Lindsay Coté.

J. Sims: I want to add my voice to many who have spoken. I met with a group of

representatives from the NCCM. They came here today to share heart-rending

stories of Islamophobia and the impact of hate on young children and how

much it impacts their lives.

I am really pleased to see, sitting right in front of me here, my good

friend Furquan Gehlen, who has done an amazing amount of work on the peace

movement through­out the years. I first started to work with him when

I was at the BCTF.

I also noticed that Yousef Barakat has joined us.

I’m not going to start mentioning all the other names that have

already been mentioned, but what I do want to say is…. I want to thank them,

because they came and met with members from all sides of the House to share

with us the real impact of hate when it occurs in our communities, of

Islamophobia.

Hon. J. Brar: I would like to also add my voice to this introduction of the members.

I would like to welcome all members of the B.C. Muslim Association and all

members of the Canadian Muslim association.

I would like to thank them for the exceptional work they’re doing to

build a better society here in B.C. and in every other province in the

country.

I’ll ask the House once again to make them feel welcome.

J. Phillip: I first apologize for my raspy voice.

I’m so honoured to introduce to you the current elected MLA for

Saskatoon Centre, Betty Nippi-Albright. Her husband is also visiting from

Saskatchewan, Ivan Albright.

Betty is both Saulteaux and Cree. She’s a mother, a

grand­mother, and she’s also Saskatchewan’s critic for First Nations

and Métis relations and truth and reconciliation. They’re here visiting

because their son is getting married.

Just a warm welcome to our guests, Betty and Ivan Albright.

[1:50 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS AND

ORGANIZATIONS IN

VANCOUVER–WEST END

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I rise today to thank organizers. Really, nothing we can do

as MLAs, as community leaders, as neighbourhood-concerned folks, happens

without those who organize, those who reach out, who make the phone

calls, send the emails, often behind the scenes, not looking for any

benefit to themselves.

Leaseholders Association and then a wide range of others, who are

interested in the concerns facing them. They’re led by a fellow named

Ron Fisher. Again, he doesn’t do it for any fame or glory. He does it

because he’s concerned about the impact of being a leaseholder and the

challenge he and his neighbours face.

I think about folks in my community working on the ARIC: Thea,

Ian, Alexandra, Sherry, Ben, Sharon, Zach, Bruce, and more.

I think about Mary-Ann Booth, who put together an Earth Day

I think of Gordon Neighbourhood House and Luke and Linda and

Siobhan.

And don’t forget Jim, of course, who organized the West End

Cleanup, not just once this year, but they’re going to be doing it every

month, throughout summer and into the fall. You’ll see me there with my

tongs and the gloves.

Thanks to all of the volunteers who show up as well.

Now, if picking up dirt around the streets isn’t your thing, you

can join the dedicated invasive removal team in Stanley Park — DIRT, as

they call themselves — who get in there and pull out that ivy. I thank

them.

I thank our business improvement association, Terry Smith and her

team, who organize not just in the neighbourhood but off the side of

their desks and all hours of the time with their celebration

Lumière.

Of course, we’ve got Ian Haywood-Farmer and Linda Johnston at the

West End Community Centre Association who are working day in, day out to

get a new community centre there, desperately needed in the

neighbourhood.

Lord Robert’s PAC, with the Fun Fest coming up Saturday, June

West End Seniors Network’s Strawberry Festival, June

The list is long. We all have the organizers in our

community.

I ask that we all celebrate them and honour them.

MINING INDUSTRY

T. Shypitka: Well, today is my second most favourite day of the year. After my

wedding anniversary, I can safely say that Mining Day at the Legislature

is a close second.

It started on the Fraser River in 1857 and spread, with thousands

of treasure seekers throughout the province, hitting the Cariboo and

other parts of the Interior. The Indigenous communities that lived in

these regions were essential to the survival of the newcomers, trading

and providing them with food and goods and acting as trusted guides and

translators.

Mining has advanced over the last 166 years, and in 2022, the

British Columbia mining industry contributed $18 billion in economic

activity to the province’s economy and 35,000 direct and well-paying

jobs.

Some may argue mining is not a sunset industry, and the role of

mining has yet to be fully recognized as we all look to a low-carbon

future and to be cleaner in our energy needs. Critical minerals and

metals to electrify and to make use of renewable power all come from the

earth, and mining these materials is how we secure and produce

them.

Let us not forget our other partners, as our major mines all came

from more humble beginnings. Our placer miners, jade miners and

prospectors largely do it for the love of the ground and the hopes of

discovering something valuable. Our junior exploration companies follow

up from the prospectors and look deep for rich, commercially sustainable

deposits. All of this takes a lot of investment and a lot more

regulatory certainty.

Some overlook the significant contributions of other miners, such

as the dedicated stone, sand and gravel miners of our province who

supply us with some of the most essential building materials, namely

concrete and asphalt. Our world would simply not exist without

aggregate. In everything from highways to hospitals, foundations to

filtration, aggregate miners are critical.

Let’s all celebrate the greatest industry in British Columbia, the

mining industry.

STEVEN M c CLENEGHAN-LEONARD

AND

ORGAN DONATION AWARENESS

R. Leonard: Last Wednesday organ transplant recipients and donors were at the

Legislature to mark National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. I

had intended to visit the gathering as my other brother Cory had been

given the gift of life thanks to a double lung transplant two years ago

this past March.

[1:55 p.m.]

But on that same day, I was on my way to be at the bedside of my

older brother, Steven McCleneghan-Leonard, who lost his life in a short

but intense battle with cancer. You would think that given our family

experience, we would know all about organ and tissue donation, but it

was still news to us that, despite the ravages of an aggressive cancer,

Steven could still donate one organ, his eyes.

One of his caregivers at Surrey Memorial Hospital approached him

and let him know that he could give the gift of his eyes so that up to

eight people could see again. Steven wore glasses. That didn’t matter.

He could have been blind or have cataracts or glaucoma, and he could

still donate.

Up to two corneal transplants — that’s the clear lens in the front

of the eye — can give someone the opportunity to live life more richly

with the gift of sight, and up to six grafts of the whites of the eyes

can help people with glaucoma overcome other disease or injury. The

sclera, as the whites are called, can be used for eyelid reconstruction

or help artificial eyes move more naturally.

Even having an open casket is no deterrent. Conformers are put in

place to maintain the eye shape.

Out of tragedy can come a better future for so many. For Steven,

it was one small ray of light.

Please consider giving the gift of sight, the gift of life, by

registering. You can google “take two minutes” or go straight to

register.transplant.bc.ca.

No one will ever regret this decision.

WHITE ROCK LAWN BOWLING CLUB

T. Halford: I’m going to talk about an event that I was at and had the

opportunity to go to. That was lawn bowling. I was able to lawn-bowl on

Saturday and Sunday and able to celebrate the White Rock Lawn Bowling

Club’s 90th anniversary.

It was an honour to roll out the first ball with other

dignitaries, the mayor of White Rock and the federal MP, Kerry-Lynne

Findlay, at the opening day ceremony. I did that, as well, on Saturday

for Mann Park Lawn Bowling.

What truly distinguishes the White Rock Lawn Bowling Club is an

to the dedication of the members and the generous support of the city of

White Rock, the club boasts an all-weather carpet, ensuring that the joy

of lawn bowling knows no seasonal boundaries. While some may see lawn

bowling as a summer pastime, White Rock Lawn Bowling remains proudly

open all year.

In the vast landscape of British Columbia’s lawn bowling

community, the White Rock Lawn Bowling Club shines as a beacon of

excellence. With a membership that spans generations and skill levels,

they pride themselves on being the sixth-largest club in the province

and the second-largest one just on one green.

As we pause to celebrate the nine decades of history…. By the way,

I should mention that yesterday when I was there, there were at least

four members all over the age of 90 that have been members for over five

decades. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the president of the

club, Trudy Gordon, the vice-president, Chris Pennington, as well as the

other executives who are part of this amazing club.

May the spirit of camaraderie and sportsmanship that defines the

club continue to flourish for generations to come.

CONNECT FEST AND

POWER OF

INCLUSIVITY

K. Chen: Every year Burnaby community members and groups gather for the

annual Connect Fest, also known as the Festival of Learning,

co-presented by SFU and the city of Burnaby, with events and activities

throughout the city, for people of all ages to learn and share

together.

Over the past few years, I’ve participated in several activities.

One year I was simply doing a round around Deer Lake, and I stumbled

upon a sign posted by the festival, leading me to a hidden trail

surrounded by the sounds of nature — creeks, birds and animals. Right

there, in the heart of our very busy city, I experienced an unexpectedly

beautiful and calm moment that I’ll never forget.

[2:00 p.m.]

This year I had the privilege of dropping by a multilingual poetry

walk at Stoney Creek, organized by Burnaby Public Library and Fraser

Health as part of the festival. Despite the rain, many neighbours and

friends, including young children, came together as we began the event

with a warm welcome and song from two Indigenous Elders from the

Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation, highlighting the diversity of our community with

conversations and poetry shared in multiple languages.

It reminded me of how I’ve been rethinking the word inclusion. I

used to use the term often. But I’ve come to realize it’s a limitation

in only including people in existing frameworks,

whereas true equity

should empower people to find a genuine sense of belonging.

This reminded me of the hidden trail I mentioned ear­lier,

where I surprisingly discovered a sense of comfort and belonging beside

the main walk around Deer Lake, just as the participants at the poetry

wall, celebrating their diversities and identities through poetry,

proudly in their own languages. Instead of making people fit in or be

included, perhaps it’s time for our languages to evolve and truly

embrace the meaning of diversity and equity.

I welcome everyone to join the annual Connect Fest, where I hope

we can all uncover our own unique learnings as we collectively strive to

foster a more equitable society where everyone truly belongs.

SURREY SCHOOLS BOOK BAN CASE

AND WORK OF SURREY PRIDE

SOCIETY

E. Sturko: In 1997, three children’s books — Belinda’s Bouquet ,

Asha’s Mums and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue

Dads — were banned from public school classrooms in Surrey and

White Rock. They were banned by the school board because the stories

featured families with same-sex parents.

The school board reported complaints from parents that their

religious beliefs would be offended. Protesters and counter-protesters

picketed the school board meetings, and a news

article from the 1997

Surrey Now-Leader recalls that the board’s decision “nearly

triggered a brawl.”

It launched a six-year court battle that ended in a 7-2 Supreme

Court ruling in 2002 that no school board can ban a book based on LGBT

content or moral objections from parents that are not consistent with

secular schools. The battle was 27 years ago, and in that time of

advocacy for equality, that was when the Surrey Pride Society was

born.

The group held their first public dance on February 14, 1998, to

raise funds to support the court challenge against the book ban. The

Surrey Pride Society has continued over the past 25 years to host events

and advocate for members of the community. They strengthened the

visibility and inclusion of the 2SLGBTQ2+ community in Surrey with

events like their annual Pride Festival, the flag-raising at Surrey City

Hall, and fundraising for other non-profit organizations in

B.C.

Over the years, founding members and organizers have faced death

threats. They’ve faced abusive protest behaviour. I’ve witnessed this

firsthand. I’ve witnessed the courage of people like Martin Rooney, Dr.

Jennifer Marchbank, Larry Szunyik, Cory Cassell, Shawn Ewing and many

more who have stood up in the face of bigotry and discrimination to

advocate for equity.

As the Surrey Pride Society celebrates 25 years, I want to thank

everyone involved in the organization for their dedication and their

work to make Surrey a safe and welcoming place for everyone.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

ISSUES

K. Falcon: This NDP Premier is the architect of decriminalizing and

normalizing the open, public use of illicit drugs like meth, heroin,

crack cocaine and fentanyl. His Friday announcement was nothing more

than political damage control and a decrim deception that fails to end

this reckless drug policy.

Nothing is going to change until he admits that it was a mistake

and cancels this disastrous, catastrophic NDP policy.

My question to the Premier: will the Premier scrap this entire

decriminalization mess today, and if not, why not?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a serious issue. We’re talking about responding to a toxic

drug crisis in this province that’s taken thousands of lives and trying

to find a path forward that does two things. One is to make sure that

people stay alive, and they get a chance to get into treatment, and the

other is to make sure that we have safe communities that work for

everybody.

On Friday, we announced our request to the federal government to

amend the certificate to make sure that our communities are safe, that

people feel comfortable in their communities, that they can go to local

businesses, take the bus, go to shops, feel comfortable, and that police

have the tools they need to address open drug use.

[2:05 p.m.]

We did leave some specific areas where we hope people take

advantage of services, where they go without fear of arrest. One is

overdose prevention sites, where they can go connect with medical

professionals, connect with treatment. The other is drug testing sites,

where they can go and test their drugs, make sure they’re not going to

die, make sure they’re not using something they don’t understand what it

is. The third is at home. If someone has an overdose, they can call an

ambulance without worrying that there might be criminal consequences for

that.

We’re trying to keep people alive and ensure safe communities. I

hope that, on reflection, the Leader of the Opposition understands the

importance of people attending overdose prevention sites; if they’re

dealing with addiction, of testing their drugs to know what they’re

using to minimize that risk of death and serious injury.

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

K. Falcon: The problem is that for 18 months, we have seen the results of

these efforts of yours, Premier. And sadly, in 2023, over 3,500 British

Columbians lost their lives, a record number of overdose deaths in

British Columbia.

It is not working, and when something’s not working, doing more of

the same thing generally doesn’t drive different results.

Now, the Premier’s plea for a federal bailout is just a band-aid

for this self-inflicted policy disaster. His Friday announcement did not

end decriminalization, and it will not end the chaos and the carnage on

our streets, our hospitals and throughout every single community. We

know, and British Columbians are concerned, after an election — God

forbid the government find themselves back in power — that they would

reverse this in an instant. British Columbians don’t trust this

Premier’s radical agenda.

Again to the Premier, will the Premier end the decrim deception

today and scrap this disastrous so-called safe supply program and the

reckless decriminalization policies that continue to devastate

communities across the province?

Hon. D. Eby: We made a commitment to British Columbians to do a couple of

things. One is to do all we could to help ensure their loved ones had a

chance of surviving, had a chance to get into treatment. Opening more

treatment beds, more detox, finding ways for them to connect with

services, trying to remove some of the stigma around drug use so that

they could talk with family and friends about dealing with

addiction.

We got a lot of construction workers who get injured on the job,

they’re dealing with pain with opioids, things get out of hand and they

find themselves addicted to pain medications that are increasingly

dangerous for them, for example. How do we encourage and find spaces for

those folks to come forward and deal with those addictions? These are

serious issues. This is not a simple challenge for us. Alberta is

grappling with this, Saskatchewan — both of them setting records for

deaths, all of us trying to find ways to move forward here.

The chiefs of police stood with us on Friday supporting this

approach, just like they stood with us at the beginning of this process,

trying to find ways to ensure that we’re not using the criminal law to

respond to what is basically a health issue.

I hope that we can continue to work together as a province to deal

with this public health crisis in ways that respect the dignity of the

human beings struggling with addiction, but also in ways that ensure

that our communities are safe for everybody.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, second

supplemental.

K. Falcon: The problem, in large part, is that the government is really good

at making announcements. But when people need treatment, they need it

available when they want the treatment. An announcement doesn’t

help.

I think it’s notable that nowhere else in the country is anyone

following these disastrous policies. In fact, in Oregon, they quite

wisely said that this was a disaster, and they rolled back the entire

decriminalization experiment.

This decrim deception guarantees one thing for sure. One thing we

know for sure. There will be continued chaos in our hospitals, in our

streets and right across every community. Nothing is going to change

from Friday’s announcement. Nothing is going to change as a result of

this Premier’s announcement on Friday, unless and until this

catastrophic decriminalization policy is entirely dismantled.

Just this morning, this NDP government blocked, for a second time,

B.C. United opposition’s attempt to debate and vote on fully repealing

this failed decriminalization policy.

[2:10 p.m.]

Again, will the Premier today just acknowledge the massive mistake

that was made, acknowledge the chaos that exists in virtually every

community in this province and scrap this failed decriminalization

experiment?

Hon. D. Eby: The announcement on Friday was an important one. It was an

important one and a significant one. Police stood with us because they

understand the significance of what we’re asking the federal government

to do and the change that it will make in terms of giving them the tools

that they need to ensure safe communities for everybody.

The member talks about his concern about ensuring treatment beds,

but I’ll remind the member of his record. Cut $35 million in supports

for mental health and addictions for youth. Closed Riverview without

community supports in place. That was 2012. Ordered health authorities

to make $360 million in cuts, which resulted in cuts to the ATLAS youth

recovery centre in Terrace. Closed the only withdrawal management

program in the Fraser Valley. Cut funding for 22 residential care beds

in Surrey.

Now, I understand that the member wants to resile from that

record. That is his record. It’s equally true that all members in this

House stood, including the members of the Conservative Party, and voted

for the all-party committee on health that recommended this

approach.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: We’re going to address the issues in community. We’re going to

support people struggling with addiction, opening 200 treatment beds

this year alone…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …including 16 treatment beds at Orca Lelum up on the north

Island.

We’re going to continue to do the work, and I hope that all

British Columbians work together to address this public health

crisis.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ROLE OF LAW

ENFORCEMENT

E. Sturko: Well, the Premier wants to speak about records. Here’s his record:

15 months of the decriminalization pilot and the most deadly overdose

year in British Columbia’s history.

Under this NDP Premier’s decrim deception, dangerous and harmful

drug use continues unchecked. Instead of addressing severe addiction and

untreated mental illness with effective care, this government squanders

taxpayer dollars on policies that perpetuate, not solve,

addiction.

My question is: why won’t the Premier scrap his disastrous,

unwitnessed, so-called safe supply program and decriminalization

policies, give police the tools they need to compel people into services

and actually help people who are addicted get better?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I think one thing that

we certainly agree on is that the toxic drug crisis is indeed taking a

devastating toll on communities across British Columbia and across the

country. We are working to try every single thing that we can do and

every tool that we can to turn the dial on that crisis.

When it comes to the work that we do with law enforcement and with

municipalities and public health, we’ve been responsive. We have worked

with them to be responsive to the issues that they’ve raised. That is

really what Friday was all about.

But let me say to you that there has never been an investment in

mental health and substance use care and supports than what our

government has done in the last five years…. There simply hasn’t. A

government, when they were on this side of the House, that deregulated

and privatized the entire supportive recovery sector….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Quiet, please.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We are working to rebuild those supports. We’re working with that

community, with community partners and with our health authorities — 600

beds over the last number of years, 200 this year alone, $117 million to

support those community providers who are providing those important

services to improve the care and to help them stabilize. We are

investing in upstream supports. We have to do everything that we can

together to deal with the toxic drug crisis. That’s the work we’re going

to continue to do.

The Speaker: Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: This minister has talked about being responsive to police. But, in

fact, it was before this pilot even began that police warned this

government of the consequences of law enforcement being handcuffed and

unable to respond to the unintended consequences that they

caused.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Premier’s decrim deception just shifts the burden of the

crisis he caused onto law enforcement, without equipping them to compel

intervention and treatment. His plea to the federal government directs

police not to detain or compel individuals to court but merely to move

them along to nowhere, ensuring failure.

The Premier must scrap the decriminalization pilot, empower police

with legal authority and expand real solutions like drug treatment

courts to compel people into life-saving services.

My question to the Premier: what are police supposed….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Speaker.

My question to the Premier is: what are the police expected to do?

What are they expected to do when there are no services or mechanisms to

compel people to the help they desperately need?

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

The changes that were made were done in consultation, working with

local governments and working with police themselves — police who

understand that this is a medical issue, not a criminal one. These are

the changes that were put in place, changes that police themselves asked

for, that they said they needed.

That’s what we announced on Friday, and we will work with police

on the solutions that they need every single time.

You know what it comes down to, and what I find particularly

concerning, is the only deception that is taking place is we hear from

the Leader of the Opposition to scrap decriminalization. And then we

hear from other members of the opposition who stand in committee stage,

not in this chamber during estimates, and they say things such as: “The

NDP will try to tell you that we’re backtracking on decrim, which is not

the case. We’re not backtracking on decrim. We’re not backtracking on

the need for harm reduction. Does it mean that our party doesn’t support

decrim or harm reduction? Absolutely not. We do. With our whole hearts,

we want to save people.”

We get one thing from the Leader of the Opposition and another

thing from other members on that side of the House. That is the only

deception taking place.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND

ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE

SYSTEM

S. Furstenau: People are facing long health care wait times, struggling to

secure family doctors, having critical services cut, and B.C.’s most

vulnerable keep slipping through the cracks. I heard from a constituent

just this morning that her mammogram was cancelled because there weren’t

enough nurses at the hospital.

In budget estimates, I asked the Health Minister how many workers

are on the front lines of our health care system compared to the number

in administrative or corporate roles. He told me that B.C. has “one of

the lowest administrative costs in Canada.”

Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information tells a

different story. Of the provinces, B.C. is tied with Saskatchewan for

the second-highest percent of the entire health care budget going to

administrative costs, at 2 percent. The provincial average across Canada

is 1.87 percent.

My question is to the Minister of Health. As minister, he has

added over $200 million to administrative spending. Can he point to any

improvements to health care that have come from this increase in

administrative spending?

Hon. A. Dix: Overwhelmingly, what we are doing is adding front-line

workers.

The member refers to primary care. After our new payment model

with family doctors, we added 708 new doctors, net new doctors, in nine

months. We had a record year for hiring new nurses, a record year for

hiring new health sciences professionals. Our HCAP program, which

delivers front-line care and long-term care in hospitals and home

support, is one of the most successful health human resources programs

in history.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information does review these

questions. They say we have the third-lowest administrative costs in

Canada. That’s what the numbers say. They show that the percentage of

administrative costs in British Columbia has been reduced as a share of

the budget since I became Minister of Health.

The Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I was reviewing the data this morning. The Canadian Institute of

Health Information, comparing data across provinces right up to 2023.

Since 2020, yearly increases in B.C.’s administrative spending have been

11 percent, 9 percent, 15 percent and 8 percent.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’m not sure which data the minister is referring to, but I’m

looking at table D3 of the Canadian Institute of Health Information.

Health care professionals report frustration with the growing burden of

administration in the health care system.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Does the minister

believe that primary care in B.C. should be trusted to health

professionals, or does he think that there needs to be ever more

bureaucracy?

Hon. A. Dix: Since 2017, we’ve added 32 new urgent and primary care centres,

direct services for people; added 1,800 FTEs to primary care networks.

There are 77 of them across B.C. delivering services everywhere. That’s

doctors; that’s nurses; that’s nurse practitioners; that’s allied health

workers.

It is true that we have repatriated jobs in health care, and I am

proud of that. I am proud of that. People who worked in contracted

positions before, who would work a lifetime in public health care

without a pension, have been repatriated back to the public health care

system.

This is about front-line workers everywhere. That’s why we’re

leading in doctors, leading Canada; leading Canada in registered nurses;

leading Canada in health sciences professionals. And we had the best

record…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …by our health care professionals…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …and the people of B.C. in addressing the COVID-19

pandemic.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND SAFE SUPPLY

INITIATIVE

B. Banman: Last week Conservatives asked this Pre­mier to listen to the

people of British Columbia and axe his failed decriminalization

policy.

British Columbians are glad that the NDP finally lis­tened

to commonsense Conservatives. While there are only two of us in this

Legislature, it’s clear the Conserva­tives are driving the

political agenda in British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. The member has the floor.

Please continue.

B. Banman: Today I’m going to ask the Premier a follow-up question. Will he

admit here and now that his safe supply program is also a failure and

that it has killed British Columbians like 14-year-old Kamilah Sword

from Port Coquitlam? Will the NDP Premier listen to commonsense

Conservatives and axe his failed safe supply program, yes or

no?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question.

Of course, I think on behalf of all of us here, we express our

condolences to Mr. Sword for the loss that his family and that that

community have experienced.

When it comes to, again, how we respond to an unprecedented public

health emergency in which 2,546 British Columbians were killed last

year, where we lost British Columbians…. We’re losing them today. We’re

going to lose them tomorrow. Across this whole country, we are seeing

increases in mortality due to an unprecedentedly toxic drug supply where

the concentrations of fentanyl are off the charts, where we see

contaminants that do vicious, vicious things to people’s bodies that

frustrate the ability of our health care providers to treat people in

the midst of this crisis.

This is a time for us all to come together and listen to what our

health experts are telling us, listen to what the health professions are

telling us their patients need. That’s what we’re going to do. We’re

going to continue to do that: work with the doctors, the nurses, the

outreach workers who are helping us to implement the policies that will

help to turn the tide on the mortality rate that we are experiencing as

a result of this toxic drug crisis.

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

B. Banman: This morning columnist Rob Shaw wrote: “Imagine, for a second, if

former NDP Premier Horgan tried to cancel the museum project with the

kind of public performance Eby gave on decrim.”

The Speaker: Member, no names, please.

B. Banman: Most British Columbians can’t imagine that. It’s clear after two

short years that this failing Premier doesn’t hold a candle to Premier

Horgan. He just is not cut from the same cloth, not even

close.

[2:25 p.m.]

My question to the Premier: will you apologize to British

Columbians for what Rob Shaw called arrogance and to the families of

addicts for the dangerous experiment the NDP played with the lives of

their loved ones?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I think actually what British Columbians find unimaginable is the

loss that they experience time and time again. That’s what I think

British Columbians find unimaginable. The people that I speak to who

have lost loved ones, who have lost members of their community, speak to

the unimaginable gaps that those losses leave in their

community.

I just want to say a word about stigma and about how careful I

would implore all of us to be in this House when we talk about how we

move forward on one of the most vexing health issues that we have ever

faced as a community, as a province, as a country. Because the way in

which we talk about this issue can create stigma, and stigma is a

barrier to people reaching out for help.

That is what we are all about on this side of the House: building

up pathways to access, to care and support…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …for people who desperately need that help.

If people need help, please reach out to

help­starts­here.bc.ca, where you can find resources in your

community.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

MANAGEMENT OF SAFE SUPPLY AND

DIVERSION TO ILLICIT

MARKET

T. Stone: For over a year, we’ve been warning that taxpayer-funded so-called

safe supply drugs are being diverted and trafficked by organized crime

in communities across British Columbia. In fact, it’s so widespread in

the city of Vancouver that police there report that half of the

hydromorphone pills they seize are from this dangerous so-called safe

supply being diverted straight to street-level drug dealers.

My question to the Premier is this. When will the Premier adopt

B.C. United’s policy of ending his decrim deception and ending his

disastrous policies of decriminalization and of taxpayer-funded

so-called safe supply drugs?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I’m not entirely sure which policy the member across the way is

referring to, because they do tend to change from time to time. But I

will say this. Again, we work very closely with law enforcement. Our law

enforcement partners stood with us at the beginning — have been with us,

frankly, all the way through, from the original declaration in 2016 of

the public health emergency all the way through.

What they say time and time again, and what they said at the

federal health standing committee was that their primary concern is

around the production and distribution of counterfeit Dilaudid. That is

a real concern for them.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Whiteside: The production and distribution by organized crime, by predatory

individuals and organizations that prey on vulnerable people in our

communities — that is their primary concern, the issue of counterfeit

drugs that are made to look like pharmaceuticals, like real prescription

medications.

We’ll continue to take our cue from the people on the ground, the

people that we are working with, the law enforcement organizations, the

public health organizations, our health care providers, with respect to

the advice they give about how we deal with these issues.

The Speaker: Supplemental, Member.

T. Stone: Perhaps the minister should go and actually read the police

testimony that was made at this federal standing committee that she just

cited, because they actually were very, very clear that they were

talking about counterfeit pharmaceuticals, not Dilaudid.

Under this Premier, taxpayer-funded drugs are consis­tently

reaching drug dealers, and they’re flooding our communities and even

making their way into our schools. Yet every single time that we have

raised these questions, these serious concerns, the Premier, again and

again, denied that there was even a problem. The Solicitor General would

bluster and make excuses.

The reality is this. The NDP taxpayer-funded so-called safe supply

drugs are trafficked to our kids by organized crime, and they’re

fuelling the death and destruction that we see rampant in our

communities across British Columbia.

How much longer do communities need to suffer before this Premier

adopts B.C. United’s policy by ending his decrim deception and ending

his disastrous policy of taxpayer-funded, so-called safe supply

drugs?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: The member is simply wrong. Of course we take issues related to

diversion of pharmaceutical medications seriously. Of course we do. Of

course the doctors who prescribe those medications take that issue very

seriously. Of course public health takes that issue very seriously. It’s

absurd to suggest that we don’t, in the context of this public health

emergency.

We have to be serious about this issue. We have to be serious

about this. In fact, our health authorities and our health providers are

very serious about this issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: They are on alert. They are watching for those issues. We are

putting in place mechanisms to make sure that we’re monitoring and

appropriately addressing incidents related to diversion where people are

misusing their prescribed medications.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: But let’s be clear here about what is killing British Columbians.

What is killing British Columbians is a toxic drug supply that has

outrageous amounts of fentanyl and other terrible contaminants that are

creating terrible health conditions for people. That’s what’s killing

British Columbians.

These are all the issues that we need to continue to work with,

with all of our partners, as we have been doing and as we will continue

to do.

S. Bond: Well, the minister wants to talk about listening to police. Maybe

she should talk to the police in Prince George and Campbell River,

because police detachments have seized over 18,000 pills being diverted

from this government’s so-called safe supply.

We have asked this question. We have highlighted police seizures

over and over and over again in question period. Last year we raised the

evidence of diversion on platforms like Reddit, with photos showing

mounds of white pills beside their original prescription

bottles.

Yet astonishingly, two weeks ago this Premier claimed: “This is

the first time we’ve heard that data.” How out of touch could he

possibly be with the severe harms that are being caused by his

taxpayer-funded drug crisis?

When will the Premier do the right thing? When will he adopt B.C.

United’s policy to end his devious decrim deception and his experiment

with taxpayer-funded drugs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. They like to use words

like “deception.” They like to, sometimes, talk about how they are

concerned about saving lives. More often than not, they seem about

wanting to make sure that they are in step with the Conservative Party

down there, because we hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and

say: “End decrim.”

I’ll reinforce it again. On March 3, 2023, the member for Surrey

South said: “I don’t want to come across as not in favour because,

through the Select Standing Committee on Health, we have supported. The

NDP will try to tell you that we are backtracking on decrim, which is

not the case. We are not backing on decrim. We are not backing on the

need for harm reduction.”

Let me just say that again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They said: “We’re not backing on the need for harm

reduction.”

The opposition cannot have it both ways. They are either in favour

of saving lives…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …or they are more in favour of being in line with the B.C.

Conservative Party down the way.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Surrey South.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

J. Sims: I am pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth for the fifth session of the 42nd

Parliament titled Annual Report 2023-24 .

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

Motion approved.

J. Sims: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

J. Sims: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like

to make some brief comments.

[2:35 p.m.]

Our annual report summarizes the committee’s work in the year

2023-2024, during which time the committee considered six reports from

the representative, as well as her annual report and service plan, and

completed our review of the Representative for Children and Youth

Act.

The committee’s consideration of the representative’s report is an

important opportunity for legislatures and the public to hear from the

representative about issues or challenges in the child- and

youth-serving sector and to hear about progress on implementing

recommendations.

Over the past year, we received reports on mental health services

for children and youth with neurodevelopmental conditions, services for

children and youth with support needs, and for children and youth with

disabilities.

The representative also presented a report on better supporting

and nurturing two-spirit, trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse

children and youth, and one on children who go missing from B.C.’s child

welfare system.

As we reviewed these reports, committee members also identified

opportunities to improve this process and formalized opportunities to

consider receiving updates from government bodies on recommendations in

various reports.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to recognize and thank

the representative, Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, and the staff at her

office for their collaborative spirit and ongoing advocacy and work on

behalf of children, youth, young adults and families throughout

B.C.

I’d also like to acknowledge the public servants in various public

bodies for the work that they do in support of children and youth and

their families in our province.

I also want to recognize the staff in the Parliamentary Committees

Office and Hansard Services, who provided the committee with excellent

support.

I want to express my appreciation to all committee members from

both sides of the House for their ongoing dedication and collaboration

in supporting the well-being of children, youth and young adults in

B.C.

I would especially like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for

Peace River South, for his wealth of experience, helpful contributions

and leadership in this committee. I can say that the work that this

committee does is in a very collaborative manner and is focused on what

is best for our kids.

M. Bernier: I, too, just want to rise for a few moments to talk about the

annual reports and the work of this committee that have been put forward

today.

I want to echo a lot of the comments from the member for

Surrey-Panorama and thank her again, as well, for her leadership and

guidance as the Chair of this committee, as well as all of the members

on this non-partisan committee.

It is a committee that I’ve been fortunate to be on a couple of

different times over the last decade and a bit, and I can tell you that

it is one of those committees that I feel there’s a lot of good work

that takes place. It’s a very emotional committee, because we’re talking

about our children and our youth here in the province of British

Columbia.

With that, I want to thank Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, the

Representative for Children and Youth as well, because with not only her

expertise but her passion in this field, with her and her team within

that office, they’ve just done an impeccable job of putting forward the

reports that the Chair talked about, making sure that as a committee we

were presented with a wealth of information and had that incredible

dialogue where we all collaborate together to try to help our children

and youth here in the province of British Columbia.

We also took steps this last year, I just want to highlight, to

make sure that we strengthen the process. We brought forward a change

that will allow the committee to invite ministry or different groups

forward to actually talk about the representative’s recommendations and

how they will enact those or move forward to try to help our children

and youth in the province. I think that’s an important change that the

committee was very, collectively, excited to bring forward.

I’ll just end…. Anybody in this chamber who’s on a different

committee also knows that the brains of the operation and all the work

really is the incredible staff that we have within the Parliamentary

Committees Office and then Hansard Services, who does a lot of work

behind the scenes. We also collectively want to thank the committee and

the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard for their work, making

sure that we’re getting that message out, the work that was done to put

this annual report together.

[2:40 p.m.]

On behalf of the official opposition, again, I think collectively

we made this last year a better place for our children and youth. But we

have a lot of work to do, and we’re looking forward to doing

that.

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

Motion approved.

Petitions

T. Shypitka: I rise to present a petition, regarding 1,563 signatures, to stop the

proposed moratorium on placer mining in British Columbia. The B.C. Assembly

of First Nations had called for an immediate moratorium on the issuance of

new placer claims and leases in B.C. The identified moratorium on placer

mining in British Columbia has far-reaching consequences that affect a wide

range of individuals and communities.

Placer miners and their families, who have relied on the industry for

generations, face the risk of losing their livelihoods. Local businesses

that depend on the mining sector for customers and revenue are also at

stake. Moreover, the broader community feels the impact as placer mining has

historically contributed to the development of infrastructure and funding

for essential public services.

The potential consequences of this moratorium reverberate across the

province, affecting not just one group but the entire fabric of our

society.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading of Bill 25, Haida Nation

Recognition Amendment Act.

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

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

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

M. Lee: I am pleased to resume and complete my remarks on second reading

on Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act. I’ve done this

in three parts. This is the third part. I have spoken about the call

from the B.C. United official opposition, the Leader of the Official

Opposition and myself on March 22 to put a pause on this process when we

saw the initial news release put out by the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation.

After that, the agreement was provided, circulated and then

completed, finalized. I would say that I appreciate that I have now

received, as of last Friday — thank you to the minister’s office for

providing it — a black-line copy of the difference between the initial

agreement that was posted and the agreement that was signed.

Other than some clean-up of some nature, there is a particular

item which is relevant to the discussion we’ve been having to date

around fee simple interest. It is defined in the agreement, which is

carried over under this Bill 25, as you would well recognize, that “‘Fee

Simple Interests’ means all Fee Simple Lands and all rights, titles,

estates, interests and charges” and that the phrase “in existence…on the

Effective Date” has been struck out. That was in the initial agreement

that was made available publicly, but these key words are words that we

will certainly explore at committee stage.

I know the minister and his team will take note of that. The

wording in the bill itself, Bill 25, is consistent with a

forward-looking aspect, let’s say, in terms of how that would be looked

at. It’s not just as of the date of the agreement, in terms of fee

simple interests. I raise this as an illustration or an example of the

reason why we do need the time and clarity to understand what the

parties, the province of British Columbia and the Haida Nation, have

come to agreement on and what it means, particularly when it comes to

fee simple interests.

[2:45 p.m.]

Of course, the agreement, as it was first circulated, suggested

that the fee simple interests that would be protected, in effect, would

only be those that are in existence on the effective date, the effective

date being April 14. That has since been addressed on the signed

agreement, but it just demonstrates the level of clarity and

understanding that the government continued to want to have with the

Haida Nation. That is something that we will certainly pursue at the

committee stage.

I want to also reflect on the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself.

This is Bill 18, as it was back in April and May of 2023. We had, as

many members of this House know…. Certainly, we know in the official

opposition, when the government brought forward its closure motion….

That day we were put on very tight timelines. I look at the second

reading transcript. Let me just rephrase there.

I’m actually referring to two different acts here. The act that

was put on closure was the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, Bill

39. When I look at the second reading transcript for that bill, this

just demonstrates that when I talk about the pace and the work that this

government is doing, we recognize the importance of that work in terms

of the implementation of UNDRIP.

I’ve talked in other quarters like Energy, Mines in

esti­mates last Thursday about what the government’s own position

was on UNDRIP and how it is an illustrative tool. It’s forward-looking,

and it’s not to be parsed through as individual articles. We will have

that further discussion in ministerial estimates, I would expect, next

week. But in respect of

section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act, and as we look at the recognition of the Haida

Nation itself, when we have an Indigenous governing body enter into a

section 7 agreement under DRIPA, as was contemplated under the ill-fated

Land Act amendment proposal, it is subject to judicial

review.

This Bill 39, back in November of 2022 — different session,

different portion…. There was closure brought to a number of bills in

that infamous session, including, of course, the Health Professions Act

that we opposed as the official opposition. I know that on this bill,

Bill 39, that I’d said at the time was connected to Bill 37 and an

energy bill as well…. I know that the member for Abbotsford West had a

vigorous discussion with the Deputy Speaker at the time about the

closure on this. Eventually, as I got on and got to my feet on this

bill, I talked about the importance of this bill in the time that I had,

but then I was cut off too.

I don’t believe we ever went to committee on this Bill 39. We

never had the opportunity to talk about the nature of this bill, the

impact it has on First Nations, the impact it has on Indigenous

governing bodies. This is an example of the kind of rush process the

government has moved forward with, the inability to have questions asked

and answered, the restrictions on our ability to ensure that, even for

First Nations, of course, they have a clear understanding of their

governance obligations under that particular bill that holds them

accountable, as well, in terms of their decision-making that they might

have under a

section 7 agreement.

I know that, to date, we still only have two agreements with one

nation in this province in 4½ years, the Tāłtān. I heard this morning

from Skeena Resources, who are the partners of that first agreement, the

section 7 agreement. That was to be the big signal about how we’re going

to go forward with First Nations in this province with the

section 7

agreement. Skeena Resources has to report out to their investors, their

shareholders, and they’re treading water, literally.

It’s not because of the nation involved. The Tāłtān are doing

their best to work through the environmental permitting and other

considerations of Eskay Creek. It’s not even an expansion of footprint.

Arguably, it’s going to clean up their footprint from the historical

mine that’s been there. I only say this because they expected — the

company and probably the Tāłtān — that mine project would be in

production and open by 2024, this year. I heard this morning, and it’s

out there in the public record, that it’s going to be delayed for

another two years, late 2026.

[2:50 p.m.]

This is the first agreement. So as we talk about the importance of

agreement-making with First Nations and the accountability structures

that are there, the judicial review procedures and the kind of rigour

that is being put to that particular project, as I understand it, in the

environmental process, I understand that part of the challenge has been

a slowdown in terms of focusing on non-material items.

It’s just an example of the challenge that we look at when we go

forward with First Nations, and we try to do the kind of partnership and

the move forward for shared prosperity.

The other bill I was referring to, though, is the one that’s being

amended here, and that is the Haida Nation Recognition Act. Bill 18, as

it was then, in May of 2023, passed on third reading. At the time, again

in a different session, again we were on time allocation. I had 45

minutes in committee to talk about this bill — 45 minutes.

This is the fundamental framework that Bill 25 is amending. Here

we are. We’re back. I’ve had more time on this bill at this juncture

than I had on that bill back then. And I’ve taken it, because it’s

important. It’s important that we all understand the fundamental nature

of the change here.

I will say to you, at the time, when I asked…. It’s a five-clause

bill. The first clause, of course, is arguably the one that’s most

relevant to what we’re dealing with in Bill 25. Clause 1 says: “The

government of British Columbia recognizes that the Haida Nation has

inherent rights of governance and self-determination, and the Council of

the Haida Nation is the government of the Haida Nation.”

I think in terms of the latter point, we understand that. They

have a 50-year constitution. They have a clear governance structure,

including with Hereditary Chiefs and peoples, Elders.

In terms of sub 1(a), “the Haida Nation has inherent rights of

governance and self-determination,” when I asked the minister about what

that meant and how that would be defined and what’s in the scope and

extent of that inherent right of governance and self-determination, the

minister said: “I think the answer to that is that these rights are

deliberately not defined in this bill. These are not defined because, of

course, they will evolve with the jurisprudence as courts pour more

meaning into the words in

section 35 and define what inherent rights

mean.”

The minister went on to say: “More importantly, perhaps, is these

rights predate B.C.’s Legislature. These rights are those that predate

contact, and it’s an effort to ensure that we can move forward with the

nation in defining together, through negotiations, the exact scope of

that — what they mean in the here and now, in the province of British

Columbia, in the country of Canada.”

Well, there are a couple of things there. One is yet again this

government brought forward a framework type of recognition of the Haida

Nation. It didn’t define what that important inherent right of

governance and self-determination meant. As I’ve talked about at length

both on that bill and when this bill was first introduced, we have

tremendous recognition for the Haida Nation, the history of those

peoples, their governance structure. This is the first nation in our

province to receive this type of legal recognition.

When I went on through that bill and asked about, in the course of

what we’re dealing with for First Nations and the government structures

themselves, what does this mean, what standards are set, again the

government says it’s to be determined, including with the

Wet’su­wet’en peoples.

Here the minister did acknowledge that there are negotiations. We

know that. The previous government, and we’ve talked about it before

with the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act in 2009 and 2010, had recognized

the framework and the reconciliation work that’s important with the

Haida peoples and the Haida Nation. These negotiations have continued

on. But I asked why the government at that point did not indicate…. If

one looks at it, and we will go through the committee transcript with

the minister in the committee stage on Bill 25, no mention of this. No

mention of title.

[2:55 p.m.]

In fact, when asked further…. I only had time for five questions,

I believe. Maybe one or two more, but it looks like five questions. The

minister actually put the focus on determining jurisdictions of

management in Haida Gwaii in the areas of parks and protected areas.

That is the example of negotiation that the minister referred

to.

Well, of course, a year later we have a bill come forward that

still says, in the transition period…. We’re still figuring that out for

the next two years. So it’s three years after the first

recognition.

Again, my main point is this. There was no mention of title. Now,

of course, we would all recognize that title has been the core issue for

the Haida Nation for decades, at least in the courts and through this

Legislative Assembly, if not prior communications with previous

governments over many decades and centuries.

But the fact of the matter is you’d think, if we’re talking about

something as fundamental as Aboriginal title for the Haida Nation in the

way that this bill is bringing forward, that the government had an

opportunity to define what that meant, to at least alert the Legislative

Assembly that this was the first step in bringing forward, a year later,

what this is today.

We are now down to less than three weeks left in this legislative

sitting. That’s the reason why we’ve called for this bill, Bill 25, to

be made an exposure bill in order to have the full review and discussion

of this new form of title that the government has put

forward.

I’ve set out, in my previous remarks, some of the nature of

Aboriginal title, some of the elements that we will explore further at

committee stage. Those elements include exclusive use of the land. We’ve

talked about the communal nature of Aboriginal title. We’ve talked about

inalienability in terms of the title itself.

The other aspect that I should talk about is fiduciary duty of the

Crown. Once there is recognition of the title for the Haida Nation as

Aboriginal title, that means that government has the responsibility to

obtain the consent of Aboriginal title holders as set out in Sparrow. So

the Crown, post the recognition of title under Bill 25 to the Haida

Nation, has a fiduciary duty to Aboriginal title holders in respect of

decisions that are being taken regarding their title lands.

This elevates the obligation and responsibility of the Crown

beyond a mere agreement. And this is the agreement that underlies this

bill.

I know, as we’re talking about Aboriginal title, that it ought to

inform the rights of governance that are referred to in clause 1 of this

act that we’re amending by Bill 25, that there is an interplay between

title rights and the inherent rights of governance. Certainly, we will

want to understand at committee stage what the understanding of the

government is in terms of the Haida’s self-governance rights vis-à-vis

this Aboriginal title that is now being recognized.

Of course, as I’ve discussed in my second reading speech on Bill

25, that whole transition period when we’re working out jurisdictions

and, as the minister said, the province stepping back from

responsibility, it’s going to be important to understand why it is that

we had, a year ago, recognized inherent rights of governance, and now

we’re backfilling as to what they mean.

[3:00 p.m.]

I would say, again, that my concern is the continued use and

description by the Premier of our province, currently, as to the way

this will serve as a template for other title settlements, arrangements,

agreements with First Nations and our province.

I would say: will that also mean that nations will have their own

recognition acts? Will it also mean that we’ll have recognition of their

inherent rights of governance and self-determination in the way this has

been done to date?

If that’s the case, it actually underlies the point as to why we

need additional time to understand the direction and the approach of

this government. For too long, what we’ve seen is…. They have some plan,

but we need to know what the plan is beyond their 89 five-year DRIPA

action plan that they’re completing their second year of now. We need to

know their plan.

What is their plan that underlies the Land Act amendments? What is

their plan that underlies some of the other

section 7 types of

arrangements that are land-based? What is their plan with this bill and

this being a template? Something is driving this. Something more than

just reconciliation and the importance of the relationship that we have

with First Nations to move forward in this province.

I would say that as we look at…. I talked about the

federal-provincial jurisdiction. I would say, even with the passage I

read from the minister on committee…. There’s a recognition that the

negotiation is also with the federal government. Again, the federal

government has backed away from this table in terms of this agreement

and this bill.

It has been noted that in Ottawa, as I understand, in the Senate,

Bill S-16,

an act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the

Council of the Haida Nation, first reading, February 8, 2024…. The

federal government is a year behind the timing of this provincial

government. They’re doing now, in February, what this government had

done last May of 2023.

What’s the next step for the federal government? This is not even

on the floor of the House of Commons. It’s stuck in the Senate. What’s

the plan? What’s the plan in terms of the jurisdictions, federally and

provincially, in respect of the Haida Nation?

I would say…. We know…. I mentioned this in my first part of my

speech, I believe. The honour of the Crown is referred to in clause 2 of

this bill, sub 4.1(2) of the act. Honour of the Crown, I will just

observe, is something that the courts determine. It’s not something for

a government to determine.

Does that mean a government today could put in legislation that a

bill does not engage the honour of the Crown? Is it up to a government

to bind a future government in this manner, even the other way? That’s

what it suggests. That’s something we’re going to pursue at committee

stage.

Some other examples of areas to probe. So 4.2 uses the term “if

and as necessary.” This is: “The government of British Columbia

acknowledges that the Haida Nation has consented, if and as necessary….”

Well, the words “if and as necessary….”

What is it? Does the government not understand whether it’s

necessary or not? It’s an “if.” Under what circumstances is it “if”?

What circumstances is the consent of the Haida Nation necessary or not

necessary? I would have thought it would be pretty clear by now. It’s

not clear? It’s not clear in this bill? What is left to be defined

here?

Government is so confident that they brought forward a bill that

actually is the roadmap, the template, for other nations, and we’re

using the terms “if and as necessary” about the consent. Don’t we know?

Does this government not know? Is that why we have a two-year transition

period — to figure it out later? The details to be figured out later.

That’s the approach that we have said….

[3:05 p.m.]

British Columbians need more than that. They need better than

that. They need clarity. They don’t need: “We’ll figure it out later.”

That’s what we’ve been seeing from this government for the last seven

years, particularly since UNDRIP has been passed.

There are times where we don’t even get to figure it out, as I

said. Closure around the Judicial Review Procedure Act. And 45 minutes

on this actual act itself at the beginning.

Another illustration of this is the proposed

section 4.3 in clause

2 of Bill 25. It uses the term “confirmed and continued.”

We’re talking now Aboriginal title. It’s the right to possess

land. It’s the right to decide how to use it. We’re now saying the bill

is going to confirm and continue fee simple land. As I’ve discussed

throughout, how do we deal with the exclusivity around Aboriginal title

for the Haida Nation versus the exclusivity of fee simple

land?

I would say that the considerations around these questions are

important. As we know, in many parts of this province, there are other

Aboriginal title claims. Some have been dealt with through treaty. Some

of them have been dealt with through modern treaty, some of them have

been dealt with through the courts, in a couple cases, two, and some to

come. If this is the new model…. Others to be dealt with under this kind

of model. But does that mean under this model with a First

Nation?

Government says: “We recognize your title claim to the entire

territory that you’re claiming.” In this case, Haida Gwaii. “But you’re

going to consent to the fee simple interests to continue. We’re going to

confirm and continue it under this bill or under the

agreement.”

Does that mean today, for those nations that are looking and

asserting title, if they don’t consent to that continuance…? What does

that mean? What does it mean to private property interests and fee

simple interests? That is something that we will certainly

discuss.

I wonder whether, in the Tsilhqot’in decision…. Again, fee simple

lands were excluded from that title declaration by the courts. It wasn’t

sought.

Why isn’t it that this Bill 25…? If the minister says that the

private property rights are there in perpetuity…. Why isn’t it that the

government just didn’t exclude private property itself, if that’s the

case? Why have a title interest to all of the title and then exclude

private property through agreement by consent?

These are the kinds of fundamental questions that we will ask at

committee stage. This is the reason why we need the time to deal with

this. I would say, as well, the reason why that’s important…. We need

certainty.

I would expect that the non-Haida peoples on Haida Gwaii, as they

look at this agreement and understand the implications of it…. I

understand, again, that there are many citizens and many residents who

have very good relationships with the Haida peoples. They live and work

side by side. I respect that. I understand that generally.

I hope the kind of clarity that we’re trying to accomplish here

gives some certainty, not just to those people who have private

property, who have mortgages on their homes, on their lands. But if they

do choose to sell their lands at some point — the government agreement

says willing-buyer, willing-seller, like in a treaty — they’re not

undermined by this. A bank won’t actually fund the mortgage because

there’s no certainty in title.

The land title office, to the extent that you can rely on that,

meaning you do rely on that…. That’s the reason why we go through all

that legal rigmarole, including through a notary public. We understand

what’s being required and what’s bankable, what a bank can look to for

the debt that they’re extending.

I would say…. So 4.4, interim measures, talks about the fact, in

4.4(1), that there’s a need…. They “are necessary to reconcile systems

of law and governance on Haida Gwaii.” What does that mean? Certainly,

we know in the Tsilhqot’in decision, there were very specific rules for

what the provincial government could or could not do going forward, in

the face of that title decision.

[3:10 p.m.]

We see, in sub (3), as I referred to earlier, that decisions and

enactments provincially are to be administered consistently with

Aboriginal title and

section 35 of the Constitution Act. Does that mean,

just like we saw with the Land Act amendments, that decision-makers,

under the Land Act, will need to get the direction of the Haida

Nation?

That is a change, as I said earlier, in my previous remarks. As

much as we’re talking about working out the jurisdictions in the

transition period, this is a change. Is that what that means?

I think that the agreement itself is not referred to as dated….

The agreement date is April 14, 2024. I question: if there are

amendments to come, what will that mean?

In the last few minutes of my speech on Bill 25, I just wanted to

raise another point. I’ve hit on this in little ways on this third part.

We are less than three weeks to the end of this session, about 4½ months

from the calling of the election. When I look at all that this

government has brought forward and the ways that they’ve done so:

incrementally, in secrecy, with a clear lack of transparency, a lack of

consultation…. It’s just like the Land Act amendments. This is the

reason why we’re calling for this bill to be an exposure

bill.

When I look at the individuals who are behind this effort, I think

about the special adviser that was appointed by the Premier to his

office and also the adviser to the government in terms of the

implementation of UNDRIP, DRIPA. I know that the previous Premier, John

Horgan, in answer to my question when I was expressing concern about how

the scales were being tipped on proportional representation and how the

details are going to be worked out later, after we go to a vote on the

referendum in terms of the forms of voting system, said, “Well, you

should just google it,” so I did. Government by google. This is how we

find information. This is how we have to rely on the Internet to find

transparency.

When you google the names of the two individuals that I’m talking

about, they come together in an

article that was…. There may be other

articles that they have co-authored together. But there’s a very

interesting one called “Rising to the Challenge of Reconciliation.” It’s

dated January 8, 2023, a few weeks or months after one of these

individuals, the special adviser in the Premier’s office, was appointed

to that new role. If you look at this article, it talks about the

history and the challenge of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and

First Nations in our province.

Much of it I understand and recognize in terms of the

restrictions, the discrimination systemic in the history of our country

against Indigenous peoples in so many ways. But there are two points

that are made here. One is that in order to deal with reconciliation or

the relationship with Indigenous peoples…. It’s been a turbulent

transition. “The work of dismantling laws, policies and practices that

have supported injustice…. But the essential and constructive task of

building deep patterns of justice and unity now requires transformation,

not reformation.”

I just park that comment for a moment, and I go to the conclusion.

The conclusion states: “True reconciliation is emblematic of these new

imperatives” — the imperatives that they’re referring to in their

article — “and achieving it, like addressing other pernicious forms of

injustice and creating enduring conditions of peace and harmony, will

require human affairs to be ‘utterly reorganized.’ We must all be

persistent and audacious in our efforts to advance and achieve this

outcome.”

I wonder if there is more to it than what we are seeing. We are in

the official opposition. We just see what the government posts at

engage.gov.bc.ca for the Land Act amendments, what we are seeing here in

the last three weeks of the legislative session. I wonder, though,

what’s at stake. What are we talking about here truly?

[3:15 p.m.]

Is it that the Premier and this government, by their two key

advisers, are talking about deconstructing and reconstructing the laws

of our province? It’s not just about reconciliation and reformation;

it’s about transformation? What kind of transformation does the Premier

want here? What kind of uncertainty is he bringing to this province?

What kind of audacity and audacious nature are we talking about when we

have to utterly reorganize human affairs?

This is what I want to have a deeper understanding of, and this is

the reason why this Bill 25 needs to be an exposure bill.

I look forward to the committee debate on this bill.

A. Olsen: It’s my pleasure and honour to rise and speak to Bill 25, the

Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act. This is another moment in the

history of the province of British Columbia that I’m proud to stand here

as a Member of this Legislative Assembly. I bear witness to this moment

and take my place in this debate, and I’m proud to stand with the

government and celebrate this historic moment.

This is a point that I will make several times over the next 45

minutes or so, as I am the designated speaker for the Third Party. For

the first time in British Columbia, the provincial government has

advanced Aboriginal title through agreement and legislation, rather than

through litigation. We have an opportunity to embrace recognition, and

perhaps that’s what the member who spoke before me, previously, is

talking about. Transformation in this province is representative of a

government that is embracing recognition rather than a policy of denial,

which has been the hallmark of this provincial government for decades,

for more than a century.

Let’s acknowledge this moment in our history, this remarkable

moment that a province with a deeply sordid history with Indigenous

people again stands at the forefront of Indigenous-Crown relations in

this country.

As we have already seen in this debate, the policy of denial is

still a real part of the identity of British Columbia. It’s unfortunate

that it appears we will stand divided on this approach, as some voices

in this chamber grasp for what they feel is a winning political strategy

by firmly anchoring us to a losing legal one. Even as they say one thing

about truth, reconciliation, rights and title, their actions demonstrate

a commitment to denial and delay.

I raise my hands to all the people behind the scenes: the ministry

leaders and administrators, the legal and political policy analysts and

advisers, the negotiators. I raise my hands to the powerful Indigenous

leaders in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, in

the Premier’s office, the team in the Declaration Act secretariat, who

have navigated this tricky and often treacherous terrain.

It is your resolute strength, working in a sprawling institution

whose culture has evolved over time, resisting this policy approach,

that has created an ecosystem in which the transformation my previous

colleague was talking about being evidenced in this bill can

thrive.

No matter the amount of political will that I’m about to elevate,

this initiative does not happen without the leadership of all of you

working in the government. This initiative doesn’t happen without the

leadership of you all working in a good way, with your lived experience

and your commitment to overcome a deeply embedded inertia on Aboriginal

title and the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples on these

lands.

I look across the way at the people in the executive council, who

are the public and political face of this initiative. The Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head, as a lawyer, has worked for decades in Indigenous and

environmental law and has, no doubt, watched the case law emerge and

solidify — indeed, likely experiencing a personal evolution in his own

political and legal philosophy over the time. When I look over the

previous work of this minister — work that sometimes I criticize — to

this day here, I see evidence of the transformation that we’re talking

about.

[3:20 p.m.]

As we stand at the precipice of this historic moment, however the

political will was gathered and assembled, however life was breathed

into the decision to agree and legislate rather than litigate, my hands

are raised.

Also, the Premier, as a lawyer, has the depth, experience and

history to understand the strength of the claim and defence. He stated

clearly the weak position British Columbia has on the lands of Haida

Gwaii. The signals the Premier sent from the first day, where and how he

was sworn in as Premier, the advice and legal theory he has surrounded

himself with — there is an early indication of this approach. He

followed those early signals with a fundamental shift in how we do

business with respect to Aboriginal title in this province.

There is no doubt that I have many critiques of this Premier. I am

disappointed in the arguments that have been made by our lawyers and

courts. I am dismayed by the approach this government has taken with

injunctions, allowing corporate profitability and reputation to go ahead

of Aboriginal rights and title. I’m saddened by the process of the Land

Act amendments, exposing them to the leveraging of desperate

politicians. However, there is no doubt that this Premier empowered his

minister and executive council. My hands are raised to them.

Resolute political will is a necessary ingredient in producing

such a landmark action that we are talking about today. For the first

time in the long and awful Crown-Indigenous history of this province,

JSIṈSET . We have

become grown up. Heeding the advice of the courts, advancing Aboriginal

title through agreement and legislation, rather than

litigation.

Yet what I hear from the opposition benches on both sides of me is

the howling of fearmongers, the voices of denial. I heard the official

opposition critic lead his colleagues into this debate. I could hear him

and his reinforcements coming long before we saw those red coats. The

pipes and drums echoed off the marble here, announcing their

arrival.

The defence he deploys in this theatre, decades-old Supreme Court

decisions and agreements from a generation ago, daylights the outdated

strategy. The long jurisprudence evolving over nearly 75 years, and he

and his colleagues arrive at this debate with muskets to deliver the

first volley of lead shot: complaints that this assembly is moving too

fast.

Is the Supreme Court moving too fast? Is the Supreme Court of

British Columbia moving too fast? The 30-year negotiations of the B.C.

Treaty Commission — is that moving too fast? So when is the right time,

then?

The arsenal they draw from, arguing that the pace of

reconciliation is too fast, encouraging the provincial government to

tarry yet a little longer in the refuge offered by the policy of denial

that grounds the political and legal theory that has been displayed

here. From this perspective, there is no good time to advance a policy

of recognition. Or perhaps, if I were to cede any territory here, the

good time for recognition is always later, long after we’re gone from

this place and a new cohort of MLAs has inherited the mess created by

our lack of courage.

From this perspective, there is no good time to negotiate

agreements and move legislation. For nearly two hours, the member

trawled the room, baiting the members of this government so that then he

could raise his voice in righteous indignation and claim that this was

silly season. As soon as the member heard a peep of a response, the

slightest tug on the line, he springs into rhetorical action, trying to

set the hook.

“Clearly, Chair,” he claims, “based on the bleating of the

protests on the other side, this is no time to be creating agreements

and passing legislation regarding this relationship between the province

and the Haida,” which has been politically and legally evolving for

decades. Now we debate legislation that comes after that long process.

The member and the leader published not one but two joint statements

calling for a pause to do more consultation.

[3:25 p.m.]

Is that what his B.C. Liberal colleagues did once the treaties

that were negotiated were completed? Of course they didn’t. Did they

create an opaque consultation process that the member is calling for

here? No, of course they didn’t. Is the member calling for a

consultation with British Columbians on whether we should reconsider the

policy of denial? No, of course he isn’t.

Why is denial the default position? Because it’s cheap, easy and

divisive politics. That’s why. Because it’s easier to punch down on

vulnerable people than it is to elevate, educate and emancipate. The

B.C. Liberals brought those agreements to this chamber in the form of

legislation. They invited the Indigenous leaders onto the floor, and

they celebrated their collective effort just as happened last week when

we celebrated the government-to-government agreement with the Haida. In

fact, those celebrations and those proceedings followed the B.C. Liberal

template.

The official opposition is dedicated to making this season sillier

than it needs to be. British Columbians should know we are about to see

a show where member after member of the official opposition will stand

in here and claim the pace of reconciliation is too blisteringly fast,

calling for us to delay, distract and deny. However, that is far from

what is in the best interests of British Columbians. The theatre, which

would be far more entertaining if it were led by the star cast member

from the Abbotsford players, is about the political ego of a political

party that failed to identify the values that inform this political

compass.

See, politics are easy, but governing is difficult. The official

opposition’s willingness to sacrifice the best interests of British

Columbians for their own benefit is sad and dangerous. It appears that

they’ve calculated that they can exploit and leverage the

low-information landscape. Our public education system has failed to

teach British Columbians the legal and political truth of our tenuous

situation. And the official opposition is prepared to exploit and

leverage that for political gain. If any members will pause, I hope it’s

the members of the official opposition before they lead us down a

painful and expensive path.

The opposition critic can stand in this place and complain about

how the government invited the Haida into our House to take care of

business, just as always has been done in important Houses in this

territory, yet his party agreed to that ceremony happening at first

reading. I personally heard the assurances myself. The official

opposition supported the process that happened last Monday. For the

record, Mr. Speaker hosted a meeting of all the House Leaders. All were

represented at that meeting.

We discussed the plan in which the Government House Leader gave us

notice. It was a clear plan for the proceedings. It was not a surprise,

and there was plenty of time for all the political parties to deliberate

internally on it. In fact, due to the confusion of previous legislative

processes involving Indigenous leaders, which both I and the official

opposition House Leader raised substantive concerns about, the

Government House Leader suggested we should codify the process he

presented for this and all future occasions where a treaty or an

agreement involving title is being introduced.

All parties agreed that legislation involving Aboriginal title

would be addressed as per the process set by the precedent of the former

B.C. Liberal government when treaty legislation was introduced. The

Government House Leader answered a few questions. His responses

apparently satisfied those with concerns, and the process was agreed to.

I will note here that there were assurances that there was agreement

from all parties on the process.

How does the official opposition critic stand in here and complain

after the fact his colleagues were disrespected? How does he claim in

good conscience that the government’s actions disrespected this

House?

[3:30 p.m.]

Do the members of the official opposition even know that their

party agreed to welcome guests into our home at first reading? Do they

know that the government respectfully brought forward the process they

would like to use to ensure the work was done in a good way? Do the

members of the official opposition know that this was the agreement?

Does the Leader of the Official Opposition know how his critic is making

a very respectable member of their team look to the rest of us that were

in that conversation?

I am only raising this because if the public and media only hear

the side of the story that was shared earlier, they would be led to

believe that the government was up to some kind of shenanigans. The

member claimed the government acted disrespectfully, but British

Columbians need to know the truth about how this happened and who is

actually acting disingenuously in this.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Is this the kind of leadership that British Columbians can expect

from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the B.C.

United? He sends a messenger to confidently deliver one message

privately — nothing to worry about. But then, when our guests arrive, he

sits there in his seat like a cloaked bird of prey, while his critic

stands up and starts the public process of kicking dirt at our respected

guests while they’re in the room.

Do they even care how disrespectful this is? The poor form while

our House is full of Haida dignitaries, here by the invitation of all

the members of the Legislative Assembly…. That’s the embarrassment.

That’s the message that is sent to all Indigenous leaders in our

province about the kind of leadership at the tiller in the official

opposition right now.

While the leader of the B.C. Conservatives had the sense to temper

his desire to undermine and divide for at least the moments we had

guests in our home, the same cannot be said for the demonstration of the

official opposition. They call for delay. They claim there is a better

time later, in the future, to deal with Aboriginal title, after some

undefined consultation process. Yet they can’t keep their word, their

assurances, on how they will handle the introduction of a bill at first

reading.

On one hand, they outline decades of jurisprudence on Aboriginal

title, and on the other hand, they pretend like Aboriginal title is new,

like it’s the first time that we’ve been confronted by it. They know

that we’ve been on a path to Aboriginal title since the first cases

after the Indian Act was amended in the early 1950s, 70-plus years

ago.

That time those amendments allowed Indigenous peo­ple in

Canada to fundraise and to hire lawyers, to seek legal advice to advance

land claims. To think that the federal and provincial governments felt

their position so tenuous that they would make a law that would restrict

Indigenous people from having lawyers to defend themselves should be

enough of an argument, laid out just in and of itself, to stand on its

own, to demonstrate that we are in no way moving too quickly on

Aboriginal rights and title.

Prior to those early 1950s amendments, it was illegal for

Indigenous people to hire lawyers to defend themselves. That’s part of

our collective history. They and all our legislative predecessors did

everything they could to ensure the path was long and the journey was

fraught with lawyers, courts and great expense.

While some members of this House have removed the red coats,

choosing to step out of the colonial sludge to embrace the new story to

tell ourselves about who we are, for others, it remains a

struggle.

Reconciliation is both a group and an individual project.

Government has a responsibility to bring British Columbians along, to

invest in ensuring that everyone who lives here has a truthful account

as to how we arrived at this point today. Governments, for decades, have

failed to do that. Other opposition parties — well, they’re choosing to

prolong the pain.

[3:35 p.m.]

We as individuals have a responsibility to reconcile, while

government carries the responsibility to reconcile in the best way we

can on behalf of all British Columbians. That responsibility begins the

first moment after our executive council is sworn in, and it is a

responsibility they carry until the first moment of the swearing-in of a

new executive council.

There has been a specious argument laid out here that because we

are so close to the next election, the work of government should stop,

that somehow their mandate ends before it ends. Did it start after it

started? Do the members argue that the executive council is too new to

make decisions? Of course they don’t. Does the member consider that this

government is the most experienced in this matter? They’ve been involved

in all of the discussions and negotiations as this issue has developed

over the last four years.

Presumably, there is a belief that there is this sweet spot, 18 to

36 months, where it’s okay for a government to make decisions. Outside

of that, they are either too new or too close to the next election. It’s

absurd. But it’s this approach, it’s this mindset that is exactly,

precisely how we got to this point today, where decades pass, and the

people in this room adopt a policy of denial and then never move away

from it. The status quo is too easy to maintain, especially if you

benefit from it.

As a result, there have been decades of commitments from our

executive and legislative branches to ensuring that every inch of ground

ceded to Indigenous people has to be fought for, standing with the

Attorneys General at the ready, right on the other side, pushing back

with the full force of government lawyers. Up until 70 years ago,

Indigenous people weren’t allowed to have their lawyers on the other

side.

While the executive and legislative branches of government have

been laggards, the judicial branch has a different history. For at least

the past 30 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has been encouraging the

provincial government of British Columbia and others to stop the steady

flow of court cases and the mounting legal bills, accept the futility of

their policy, recognize Aboriginal rights and title and create an

effective table for government-to-government dialogue and

decision-making. They have urged us to create a negotiated approach,

with the end point being agreement, and perhaps legislation.

After many Supreme Court decisions like Delgamuukw and Haida and

Tsilhqot’in, this provincial government decided to abandon denial and

try another route: the policy of recognition. That’s what we see in

front of us today. Recognition is unfamiliar for Canadians. There is

more tied up in our culture and identity than we can imagine that makes

it challenging for us to recognize Aboriginal title and the inherent

rights of Indigenous people on these lands and territories.

On this point, I agree with the opposition critic that the public

needs to be included in the government’s work. However, it should not be

used as a way to effectively obstruct progress, as has been the

experience of Indigenous people in this province for decades. We have

been moving forward together since Idle No More in a more collective way

than this country has ever experienced. As the truth of our history

emerges, some eagerly, some indifferently and some reluctantly began

that slow march of reconciliation.

This is why I devoted so much time in the beginning of these

remarks to note my disappointment of the quality and content of the

current and adjacent affairs to this bill. It’s why I’m offering as much

resistance in the form of sharp critique of the destructive and divisive

work of my colleagues on the opposition benches who seek to undo

progress because they can dangerously leverage the majority of citizens

against the minority.

After years of working together, the provincial government and

Haida have come to an agreement, saving the Attorney General from having

to mobilize a team of lawyers to lay out a divisive and, frankly,

dehumanizing argument before a court makes a decision in which they are

likely to decide against the province and once again reaffirm their past

encouragement for the legislative and executive branches to get this

business from out in front of the judicial branch.

[3:40 p.m.]

Why? It’s because in all those decisions, we’ve witnessed the

province lose ground, case after case. Despite the misinformation being

pushed by the populist leader here of the B.C. Conservatives, the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act that he wants to

repeal only affirms rights that already exist. It doesn’t create new

rights. The Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act doesn’t create new

rights. There are no new liabilities being created. This agreement and

legislation recognize rights and title that exist, making it a

foundation for a discussion, going forward.

However, a dangerous populist who cares little for the truth would

have you believe that they can and that it is good and right to repeal

an act that affirms human rights. They would have you believe that

forcing title recognition to come from litigation, like the arguments

against Bill 25, is a better and more certain route than agreement in

legislation. They know they can exploit a deeply embedded Canadian

cultural belief of mistrust and contempt if not for Indigenous people,

then for the situation of Indigenous people.

I’m calling it out here because we, as a society and as

individuals, can acknowledge that we all carry some of this shame with

us. We all inherited just a little bit of it. Historically, it’s been

easier to ignore it and bury it under excuse and justification. However,

by identifying the shame of how bad we have allowed it to get, we can

seek to reconcile.

There is no need for ugly arguments from the Attorney General that

force the Haida into court to defend their humanity. That is what is so

disappointing by the way the opposition parties have approached this

issue: without the courage to deal with this issue now, wanting to push

the issue further into the future, like the legislators before them,

knowing that Aboriginal title has always existed, as has the liability

associated with decades of alienating Aboriginal title. This is not

new.

However, the approach to address it like a mature institution at a

table, government to government, in a multi-step process of recognition

— that is new. What we’ve seen from the other opposition parties, what

they will not directly address, is the reality that the Crown’s denial

of Aboriginal rights and title has led to the uncertainty and the fears

that they are stoking, weakening the investment climate, creating

conflict, harm and intergenerational poverty for Indigenous

peoples.

We have the leader of one of the parties saying, “Wait,” and the

leader of the other party saying: “Tear it down.” Both are economically

irresponsible, damaging the well-being of British Columbians by

perpetuating economic and social uncertainty. I hear, from the one

leader who sits right next to me, complaints that the Supreme Court of

Canada made a mistake in the

Tsilhqotʼin decision when it

comes to the land occupied by infrastructure. “The courts got it wrong,”

I heard.

Yet now there’s a position that almost assures us a constant and

steady march to those wrong-headed courts, choosing uncertainty over a

more responsible approach, government-to-government negotiations,

agreements in legislation, where we can make sure we get the details and

a flexible plan thoughtfully laid out.

It is increasingly uncertain, and the provincial record in front

of the court is not improving for the province of British Columbia, but

one thing is certain. The leaders of both of the other parties are more

comfortable dividing British Columbians against Indigenous people,

turning the majority against the minority, through fearmongering, rather

than engaging in the difficult work of facing down the legal reality

that our legislative ancestors left us with.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s important to acknowledge that litigation on Aboriginal title

has been in front of the courts since the 1970s. Like I said earlier,

the courts have implored us to sort it out, saying to use legislation

and agreements to do so. We hear the other opposition leaders talk about

economic reconciliation. What we’re doing here today is effecting the

advice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which last month said: “Make

legislative reconciliation by braiding together both common law and

Indigenous law, with the Declaration Act as the guide.” How much longer

do we talk and not act?

I saw a video from one of the leaders claiming that these

agreements are a threat to private property rights. What he doesn’t

address is the fact that the risk to private property owners is actually

the status quo. The uncertainty exists because of the following: the

Crown grants private property rights. The courts have found Aboriginal

title to exist. The courts have also found that Crown title is burdened

by Aboriginal title. As a result, Crown title, including the fee simple

interests that derive from it, has an element of uncertainty until the

issue of Aboriginal title is dealt with, until true reconciliation takes

place.

Did the leader of the B.C. Conservatives share that little bit of

legal reality in his populist rhetoric? Of course he didn’t. Did he

share with British Columbians that through the Haida agreement as it’s

laid out, for private property owners on Haida Gwaii, this uncertainty

is removed? The Haida have now confirmed that they acknowledge and agree

in accordance with their title and their laws that fee simple interests

shall exist as they always have.

The burden on the Crown title caused by Aboriginal title has been

addressed on Haida Gwaii with this act. True reconciliation is taking

place. The end result is that private property interests are secure,

certain and clearer on Haida Gwaii than they have ever been since

contact, with the passing of this.

Folks, it’s the status quo that threatens the certainty that all

British Columbians seek. Why are we not hearing that from the leader of

the B.C. Conservatives? Why doesn’t he want certainty for Indigenous

people and all private property owners in British Columbia? Well, I

think it’s because Indigenous people are an easy target for his

dangerous populism. And as we’ve seen time and again, they never hold

back on punching down.

If the opposition leaders were more interested in a

good-functioning British Columbia than their own desire to obtain the

Premier’s seat, then they would be congratulating the fee simple

landowners of Haida Gwaii. When this law passes, their fee simple

tenures are on the strongest footing ever and anywhere in the

province.

What they don’t want is to confront the Aboriginal title…. Sorry.

What I’m not hearing from the opposition leaders is that Aboriginal

title is being decided in British Columbia. Whether by the court or by

agreement, Aboriginal title in B.C. is being decided. We have a choice

between the uncertainty of litigation and decisions, court decisions, or

the certainty of agreement and legislation.

In the same week as Bill 25 was introduced, the B.C. Supreme Court

decided on an Aboriginal title case involving the Nuchatlaht respecting

about 11 square kilometres of Nootka Island. We need to be honest with

British Columbians. Whether it’s by litigation or by legislation, both

are setting precedents for British Columbia. Both come with a

cost.

To lead people to believe otherwise is just disingenuous. To

divide British Columbians is poor politics, and it’s bad leadership.

We’ve seen the leaders claim to support Aboriginal title when facing

First Nations leaders. Then they spread disinformation and

unsubstantiated fearmongering in front of a different audience.

Aboriginal title exists. The liabilities that are the result of

alienating Aboriginal people from the title to these territories exist.

We cannot escape that.

[3:50 p.m.]

That’s what makes this type of politics so dangerous. We need to

move past litigation and into agreement and legislation for all the

reasons they claim to be concerned: certainty for private property

owners, improving business investment, managing the massive liabilities

this Crown government continues to carry as a result of the decisions

and fears of former members of this Legislative Assembly to alienate

Indigenous people from the title to their territories, and the health

and well-being of Indigenous people and communities.

I’d like to provide some context for how this feels as a Haida

person. As I’ve done in the first iteration of the Haida Nation

Recognition Act, 2023, I’ll share some words from my colleague,

G ud Takin Jaad, Rose Williams.

“[An Indigenous language was spoken], good people. I’m a proud

member of the [an Indigenous language was spoken] Eagle Clan, and a

translation means ‘islands of the people.’ The Haida Nation has been

living with these lands and waters since time immemorial. Most recent

archaeological evidence has shown we’ve occupied the archipelago for at

least 15,000 years. It is remarkable.

“The stories of those who have passed before us are shared

throughout the nation, greeting the ears of our children before they

become earthside. Our creation stories, Raven and the

Clamshell , How Raven Stole the Sun , The Great

Flood — they depict a time long ago, a time when our people

first found their way to Haida Gwaii, a time when they began to shape

communities, traditions and systems of governance. These stories were,

throughout recent history, dismissed as fiction. Yet as more evidence

comes to light, we see our stories as close descriptions of the true

history of the lands.

“We use our stories to pass on knowledge between generations and

communities, to describe where we came from and to where we are going.

The stories of [an Indigenous language was spoken] are reminders of our

values: practice gratitude, do not be greedy and have respect for all

living things.

“Our stories are a reminder of the values and laws that guide us as

Haida people and the responsibilities we have as citizens of Haida

Gwaii. We recognize that all these things are connected and that we need

each other to survive. To move forward and together in this world we

must practice yahguudang , respect for all living

things.

“For millennia, we’ve stewarded the lands and waters of Haida Gwaii.

We owe our lives to Haida Gwaii. We have a responsibility to uphold the

sacred relationship. Through reciprocity, gratitude and the fire burning

in our hearts, we’ve maintained our role as stewards of these

lands.

“The first paragraph of the Haida Nation constitution translated in

X̱aayda Kil and X̱aad Kil reads as follows: ‘The Haida Nation is the

rightful heir to Haida Gwaii. Our culture is born of respect and

intimacy with the land and sea and the air around us. Like the forests,

the roots of our people are intertwined such that the greatest troubles

cannot overcome us. We owe our existence to Haida Gwaii. The living

generation accepts the responsibility to ensure that our heritage is

passed on to following generations. On these islands, our ancestors

lived and died, and here, too, we’ll make our homes until called away to

join them in the great beyond.’

“The Council of the Haida Nation finds its roots in resistance to

colonial occupation and extraction. It was established in 1974 with the

recognition that we needed a governance body that represented the values

and rights of Haida citizens. Last year we celebrated the passage of a

monumental piece of legislation, the Haida Nation Recognition Act. This

legislation recognized the Council of the Haida Nation as the government

of the Haida Nation.

[3:55 p.m.]

“The Council of the Haida Nation was not created under the purview

of a colonial authority by way of the Indian Act but rather through the

efforts of community. It encapsulates the voices of elected officials,

Hereditary Chiefs and Matriarchs. Their decision-making is guided by

Haida law and values. The day that legislation passed third reading

continues to fill my heart with joy and hope.

“I again express my gratitude to the MLA for Saanich North and the

Islands and the B.C. Green caucus for the opportunity to share my words

in this space during debate of Bill 18 last year and now for Bill 25. I

didn’t think I’d be witnessing such significant moments at this age,

much less be given the opportunity to have my words shared in this

House.

“As I shared during Bill 18 debate, we are reclaiming and

revitalizing that which makes us Haida. Not long ago our language, our

culture, our connection to the land and our very existence were

threatened. Our people have endured centuries of colonization, forced

displacement and resettlement, disease, the stealing of our ancestors

and our children, the attempted destruction of our cult