Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 188

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — School Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. J. Whiteside

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

David Douglas Botanical Garden

M. Morris

Unconscious bias and critical thinking and work of Police

Act reform committee

G. Begg

AltaGas and liquefied petroleum gas industry

E. Ross

East Van Kids STEAM

M. Elmore

Jerry Doucette

I. Paton

Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver

H. Yao

Speaker’s Statement

Conduct of members during question period

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Hospital capacity on Vancouver Island

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 impact on hospitals and access to data

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

R. Merrifield

Hon. D. Eby

B. Banman

M. Morris

K. Kirkpatrick

T. Shypitka

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Fraud Risk

Management: Site C Dam and Hydroelectric Energy Project ,

April 2022

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Beyond

Compliance: Ensuring Quality in Care Planning , April

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

T. Shypitka

Hon. B. Ralston

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I have two introductions. One is a number of birthdays at the end of

April. When we’re young we enjoy celebrating those birthdays, and then, as

we get older, we kind of try to ignore them. But they’re still a wonderful

day to remember people.

A long-time friend of mine, Ian Mass, has a birthday. I can’t remember

if it’s today or some time around now — anyway, this week. My former

sister-in-law, who gave me a beautiful niece, and I now have a grand-nephew,

Inder Leonard, and someone in this House who has become a very dear friend,

the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training. I hope that the

House will join me in celebrating them with giving them a good round of

applause.

Also, I have today, visiting from Courtenay-Comox…. It’s not often

this happens. Right next door to my constituency office is Square 1 Travel.

They do B.C. tours. Today Teresa MacDonald is here with 30 members of the

community to visit this Legislature. Would the House please welcome

them.

R. Glumac: I would like to welcome to the House Greg Moore and Tony Kai, here on

behalf of the Crossroads Hospice in my community. Greg won a contest to have

a day with some MLAs, so he’s going to spend some time with myself and the

member from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and we’re going to tour him around. So

would the House please make them feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. J. Whiteside presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School Amendment Act,

Hon. J. Whiteside: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 22, School Amendment Act, 2022,

which will make a set of amendments to the School Act to assist the

province to meet its constitutional obligations under the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide capital resources to the

Conseil scolaire francophone in support of minority language educational

programs. These amendments will help to address a 2020 Supreme Court of

Canada decision that defines the province’s obligations to provide

school facilities and land to support the delivery of francophone

educational programs to children of minority language education rights

holders.

The CSF is one of the 60 public boards of education established

under the School Act, but has a unique and specific mandate to provide

public education in French. The CSF is the sole public francophone

education authority in B.C. and provides francophone educational

programs, primarily to students whose parents have constitutional rights

under

section 23 of the Charter to have their children receive education

in the French language.

Since the creation of the CSF in the mid-1990s, the province has

used several mechanisms to acquire land and school facilities for the

CSF. However, these mechanisms are insufficient to meet the full scope

of the province’s constitutional obligations as now defined by the 2020

Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The proposed legislation will play an important role in supporting

the implementation of the province’s CSF capital strategy. Under this

strategy, the province will implement a coordinated suite of new

policies to address the CSF’s capital needs, with a focus on

collaborative and negotiations-based approaches to obtaining

land.

[10:10 a.m.]

To support this work, the proposed legislation includes a

requirement for boards of education, including the CSF, to report

information to the Minister of Education and Child Care about all lands

they own or lease. This requirement will allow the ministry to create an

inventory of all lands used for K-to-12 purposes to support efforts to

meet the CSF’s capital needs over the long term.

The province is committed to continuing to work collaboratively

with the CSF and all boards of education to find land solutions that

meet the CSF’s capital needs. This includes purchasing private land and

investigating opportunities to better leverage Crown land in areas where

school district land is fully utilized. The legislation will also

provide the province the authority to first designate land held by

another board and then to transfer that land to the CSF if collaborative

and negotiations-based efforts fail.

It is important to note that this new power will only be used as a

last resort, as part of a continuum of approaches, and only if and when

all other attempts to fulfil the province’s obligations to

section 23

rights holders are unsuccessful.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, School Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DAVID DOUGLAS BOTANICAL GARDEN

M. Morris: In 1991, a group of community gardeners formed the David Douglas

Botanical Garden Society and established their garden on the grounds of

the University of Northern British Columbia in the city of Prince

George.

It is the most northerly botanical garden in Canada. For the past

30 years, this beautiful and picturesque facility has been visited by

thousands of people every year. Its grounds have attracted tourists,

weddings and other events, and I have no doubt that the photographs of

this magnificent garden are shared internationally.

Bold plans are now in the works to expand the gardens by an

additional ten-plus acres on the UNBC campus. The goal? To become a

working model for cold-climate landscapes and to promote sustainable

horticultural practices and ecological values of native and adaptable

plants.

In their plans is a food-bank garden, focused on developing new

varieties of fruits, vegetables and herbs, fruit trees and berry crops

compatible with our northern climates. The grounds will be complemented

with a multipurpose visitor centre, a multiple-themed garden, such as a

libertarian garden, complete with memorial arts and sculptures, a

reading garden, rose garden, children’s garden and many

others.

Taking advantage of the natural forest in the garden area, a First

Nations garden will celebrate art, history and culture of the various

First Nations bands in northern B.C. Complementing this will be a

medicinal healing and native plant display garden, blending into the

natural forest and connecting the marshlands and water

gardens.

There’s no doubt that the garden features will continue to attract

local wildlife populations, including natural arborists like moose and

deer. From my own experience as a home gardener, these natural arborists

will certainly challenge the maintenance and grooming plans of a master

gardener.

The David Douglas Botanical Garden will showcase the value of

biodiversity in our natural environments.

UNCONSCIOUS BIAS AND CRITICAL

THINKING AND WORK OF

POLICE ACT REFORM COMMITTEE

G. Begg: Unconscious biases are associations or attitudes that reflexively

alter our perceptions, thereby unintentionally affecting our behaviours,

interactions and decision-making. Ridding ourselves of our unconscious

biases may seem to be somewhat antithetical to the work that we do here

in this House every day.

Think about that for a second. Are we all constrained by the dogma

or doctrine of our political persuasions, such that our behaviours, our

interactions and — most worrisome of all — our decisions are

biased?

We — all of us, each of us, every one of us — need to be actively

confronting and discussing this subject at every level so that we bridge

the gaps and learn where to dedicate resources for improvement, even if

it means confronting awkward topics and having uncomfortable

conversations. This issue does not improve if we choose to ignore it or,

what’s worse, deny it.

[10:15 a.m.]

Some of the best work done in this House is done in committees,

where to at least some degree, we’re forced to sharpen our

critical-thinking skills, to shed our political labels, and to cooperate

and collaborate on outcomes. Critical thinking is to be rational,

reasonable, empathetic and, on occasion, upon evidence, to change our

minds.

For the past two years, I’ve been privileged to be part of the

Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, a group which I honour

today as being an example that we all can aspire to. Our report will be

tabled later this week. Today I publicly acknowledge the hard work of

the committee, comprising an amazing group of legislators who are truly

critical thinkers and who truly reason at the highest level of quality

in a fair-minded way.

Please join me in thanking the Chair, the member for Nanaimo–North

Cowichan; the Deputy Chair, the member for Peace River North; and the

members for Port Moody–Coquitlam, Surrey–White Rock, West

Vancouver–Capilano, Victoria–Beacon Hill, Saanich North and the Islands,

Vernon-Monashee and Surrey–Green Timbers.

ALTAGAS AND

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

INDUSTRY

E. Ross: I rise today to speak about AltaGas, a company that is delivering

cleaner, reliable, safe and affordable energy to global customers.

They’re an excellent example of the innovation that exists in our

province and the potential of a largely untapped sector.

Propane and butane, better known as LPG, are two of the most

versatile, cost-effective and environmentally friendly fuel sources in

the world. LPG is an important low-carbon conversion fuel for countries

that rely heavily on wood, coal, charcoal, animal waste and kerosene as

their primary domestic energy sources.

Asia’s increasing climate ambition and increasing demand for

energy will drive long-term export opportunities for Canadian LPGs.

AltaGas exclusively ships from their Ridley Island propane export

terminal located in Prince Rupert and Ferndale Terminal in Washington

state. Using very large gas carriers, AltaGas provides the most

efficient, safest and lowest-carbon transportation vessels, connecting

North American producers to premium LPG prices in Asia and providing

energy security.

The west coast exports have around 60 percent, base case, time

savings over the U.S. Gulf Coast and approximately 45 percent, base

case, time savings over the Arabian Gulf. This is a huge advantage when

there is congestion at key maritime checkpoints. The exports from Prince

Rupert and Ferndale comprise approximately 14 percent of Japan’s total

imports of propane and approximately 15 percent of South Korea’s total

LPG imports.

This is a massive opportunity for B.C. to become a leading

supplier of LPG. Propane and butane are a safe, Canadian-produced clean

energy resource with a great potential to provide significant job

opportunities for many people in British Columbia.

I commend AltaGas for their innovation, which strengthens our

economy every day. I will take them up on their offer to tour their

facility.

EAST VAN KIDS STEAM

M. Elmore: I’m pleased to highlight today a wonderful group that came

together to help kids in East Vancouver develop to their fullest

potential. East Van Kids STEAM started as a grassroots community pilot

project, in collaboration with the Vancouver Public Library, Kensington

branch. It was founded by local community members Khristine Carino and

Jean Parlina, and they ran programs from summer 2018 to spring

STEAM — science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics —

refers to an education initiative that helps kids develop critical

skills they can use in life and that empowers them to use their unique

talents to critically tackle a challenge or a project at hand. One of

the organizers, Christine Corinho, says she started East Van Kids to

democratize access to learning opportunities in STEM. She was aware that

many children from financially challenged and racialized groups are

unable to avail of science and tech programs in the city, so she created

this free program.

At East Van Kids, almost 400 children from East Vancouver

participated in science and coding and robotics workshops, facilitated

by guests from Microsoft, Canada Learning Code, Kids Code Jeunesse, SFU,

Open Science Network and the Society for Canadian Women in Science and

Technology.

After a hiatus during the pandemic, East Van Kids is relaunching

in 2022 as an incorporated social enterprise offering outdoor nature

exploration summer camps. Committed to social inclusion and racial

equity, East Van Kids will be offering bursaries to children from

financially challenged and/or culturally marginalized families in future

programming.

[10:20 a.m.]

Please join me in recognizing the great work and posi­tive

impact East Van Kids is having on these children, their families and our

communities.

JERRY DOUCETTE

I. Paton: Well, a few of us who grew up in the ’60s and ’70s may just

remember Mr. Jerry Doucette and his iconic hit “Momma Let Him Play,”

which still rocks the airwaves even today. A constituent and a Ladner

resident, Jerry passed away from cancer just last week at our beloved

Delta hospice at age 70.

A singer, songwriter and outstanding guitarist, Jerry was best

known for his song “Momma Let Him Play,” which was certified platinum in

Canada in ’77 and hit the Billboard Hot 100 . His band,

Doucette, also won the 1979 Juno for Most Promising Group of the

Year.

The title of Doucette’s hit song was inspired by something his dad

said when he was growing up. His father, Louis, worked shifts. When he

came home to find Jerry practising the guitar, his mother would tell

their son to be quiet. “Momma, let him play,” Doucette recalled his

father saying: “Later, I thought ‘what a great title.’”

Doucette released five albums as a solo artist between ’77 and

’99. He continued playing small venues and clubs in western Canada until

2018, when heart problems put his performing career on hold.

He was a frequent regular at several Delta venues and also

participated in many local fundraisers. Some of those fundraisers

included the annual Christmas toy drive for Deltassist, fundraising for

the Reach Child and Youth Development Society and Variety, The

Children’s Charity. The community came together in 2018 in Tsawwassen to

hold a fundraiser to help Doucette with his medical expenses following a

car accident and the discovery of his heart condition.

On a personal note, showcasing Jerry’s generosity, a young friend

of mine, Nick Loladachuck, once contacted Mr. Doucette to let him know

he was presenting to his Ladner grade 7 class an assignment on the story

behind Jerry’s life and his hit song. Mr. Doucette responded by not only

encouraging Nick, but he actually showed up at his grade 7 class with

guitar in hand to speak to his fellow students.

Doucette was a brilliant guitarist who was admired by fans and

loved by fellow musicians, and in the words of his son Gerry Jr., it was

very special to see the joy he brought to so many people.

“His music will live on forever, and hopefully, he will inspire

others to pick up the guitar and follow their dreams.”

HUNAN FELLOW ASSOCIATION

VANCOUVER

H. Yao: Due to the pandemic, Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver was not

able to host their annual fundraiser for the past two years. Thankfully,

on April 22, last Friday, under the leadership of president Coco Luo and

vice-president Linda Li, Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver hosted

the Richmond Hospital Foundation fundraiser in Richmond’s Sun Sui Wah

Restaurant.

Many community dignitaries attended the event, and some even

helped with the fundraising effort. For example, Richmond mayor Malcolm

Brodie, president Coco Luo and vice-president Linda Li together sang the

Chinese classic song “The Moon Represents My Heart,” which alone raised

$6,500 for the Richmond Hospital Foundation.

The evening bidding was heated as well. I witnessed the

participants generously compete against one another to purchase

paintings, calligraphy, stuffed animals, karaoke performance and other

items. Many bids went way beyond the dollars identified. Encouraged by

the master of ceremonies, the participants’ enthusiastic cheers to

support the Richmond Hospital Foundation echoed continuously in the

restaurant.

When the raffle draw time came, all the winners donated their

prizes back to the event in the hope to raise more money for the

Richmond Hospital Foundation. One of the winners not just donated his

prize back; he even challenged his table mates to add an additional

donation to complement the raffle prize that he was

returning.

I want to thank the Hunan Fellow Association of Vancouver’s

dedication to Richmond and British Columbia. The event was mostly

attended by Chinese Canadians who share a similar heritage to China’s

Hunan province. Chinese Canadians who attended the event demonstrated

their enthusiasm, generosity and commitment to the Richmond Hospital

Foundation and British Columbia’s health care system.

I want to take this opportunity to personally thank Hunan Fellow

Association of Vancouver president Coco Luo, vice-president Linda Li and

the board of directors, community leaders and dignitaries and everyone

else who attended the event to make Richmond awesome.

[10:25 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Furstenau: In the gallery today is Parker Johnson. Parker is the director of

community engagement at the Existence Project and founder of This Is Table

Talk. Through Table Talk, he has created many community discussions on the

experiences of racism and researching the positive impacts of storytelling.

We’re delighted to have Mr. Johnson join us today. Would the House please

make him feel most welcome.

Speaker’s Statement

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

DURING QUESTION

PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, yesterday towards the end of oral question period,

the level of decorum in this House declined to a level that has not been

seen in the current parliament. This conduct caused the Chair great

concern. The preservation of order and decorum is one of the most

important tasks that any presiding officer must undertake. It is, as

members will appreciate, a task that can be challenging at times,

particularly, when debates and exchanges are tense.

This House adopts rules and establishes practices that guide the

proceedings of this institution and protect itself from excesses. While

the House is the master of its proceedings and the Speaker is its

servant, through the standing orders, this House has entrusted the Chair

with powers to enforce the rules of debate and maintain order and

decorum so that this House can conduct its business in an orderly

fashion.

The Chair expects to rely on members’ confidence to allow the

Chair to discharge the duties that have been entrusted to it. This

includes members acting on the direction provided by the Chair and not

challenging the Chair when asked to undertake a course of action. This

ensures that the traditions that have underpinned our system of

governance under parliamentary democracy continue to be respected,

allowing the House and its members to fulfil their constitutional

functions.

The Chair trusts that all members will ensure that their conduct

reflects respect for this House, respect for other members, including

those across the aisle, and respect for the Chair. British Columbians’

trust in this Legislative Assembly is dependent on our behaviour and our

respect for one another and for the dignity of this institution. Please,

always be mindful of that.

You all know that I love you all. I have a great deal of respect

for each and every one of you. So please, don’t force me to send you to

your rooms. Thank you.

T. Shypitka: Can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: I’ll make it quick. In the precinct, we have Kendra Johnston, the

president and CEO for the Association for Mineral Exploration or, as we

refer to it, AME. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

S. Bond: For months, the opposition has raised concerns about prolific

offenders who commit serious crimes yet are not charged or who are

immediately released and allowed to reoffend while waiting for the

province to approve charges. While the Attorney General has dismissed

our concerns, the results are felt in every community across British

Columbia. There are increased random attacks, rampant theft and violent

assaults.

The Attorney received a letter on April 5 from 13 urban mayors in

the province. It contains very specific and detailed offence data,

detailing the Attorney’s catch-and-release policies. The letter reads in

part: “Serious repeat offenders posing ongoing risk to public safety are

walking freely in our communities while awaiting charge

approvals.”

When will the Attorney General end the revolving door and

prioritize safety in our communities?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, I’m familiar with the letter the member refers to. She

leaves out some key details.

I met with the urban mayors council on December 17. They raised

issues similar to those raised by the opposition some time after. I said

to them: “Thank you for bringing this information to our attention. Can

you provide additional details about what’s happening in your

communities?” So they wrote back to me: “We value the opportunity to

connect for ongoing dialogue and look forward to the next

opportunity.”

We met again on April 8. It says: “At the Attorney General’s

request, we are providing criminal offence data from our cities.” So I

asked the mayors. We have been engaging in dialogue since December on

this issue. I’m working with them on a response.

I want to provide a little bit of context for the member’s

question. I think anytime that someone is a victim of crime, whether

it’s property crime or violent crime, it’s a really serious and profound

impact on them and their feelings of safety. But it’s also important as

legislators that we look at provincial trends. So 2020 was the lowest

level of property offences provincially based on population since at

least 2011 and the lowest overall number of offences since

I don’t dispute that the pandemic has dramatically changed crime

patterns, that we see this concentrated in downtown areas where people

have not been, and it’s moved away from residential areas, apparently,

because we’re seeing a very low number of offences. But the issues are

more complicated than the member represents, and we need to do the work

to identify what is happening and to respond accordingly.

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

S. Bond: Thank you very much.

We should talk about what details were left out of the Attorney’s

answer when I raised the issue of this letter. Because he can

conveniently dismiss the concerns that people have across British

Columbia, but he knows full well that across this province, every single

day, there are acts of violence. There is theft.

Communities are concerned. In fact, the Attorney dismissed our

questions last month. I will quote him: “The allegations the member is

making, the anecdotes that he is delivering, are not backed up by the

statistics.” Well, apparently, all the Attorney had to do was to

actually read the letter from 13 mayors across British Columbia, and he

would have a whole raft of statistics.

Let’s look at the details under this Attorney’s watch. The time it

takes for the province to review police files since 2017 has increased

by 118 percent. The number of charge assessments that are looked at has

increased by 75 percent. No charge assessments has increased by 75

percent. And since 2017, the number of accused approved to go to court

has dropped by 26 percent.

Not my words, not my statistics. The concerns of 13 mayors across

British Columbia written to this Attorney. In Prince George, one

individual has generated 262 police files in just the past 12 months.

None of the files — not one — has resulted in a charge.

When will the Attorney General look at the statistics under his

watch, do his job and actually take some action to deal with prolific

offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question.

She insists, repeatedly, despite my extensive answers on this

question, that I dismiss this as not a serious issue. That is completely

incorrect. She knows it’s incorrect. I can assure her, every member of

the opposition, the members of the public watching, that the Minister of

Public Safety and I are working with these mayors. We’ll have more

details in the weeks to come to address this issue.

The member also knows that a lot of these offences are driven by

people with serious mental health and addiction issues. There’s a very

close relationship between prolific property crime and these kinds of

serious health problems. That’s why the complex care initiative that we

are rolling out across the province is going to make a huge difference

for public safety in a number of communities.

That is not the full response. We need to get to the bottom of

what is happening here. I’ll provide some more statistics for the member

about the complexity of what is happening. In 2011 and 2012, violent

crime incidents were cleared by police at a rate of 55 percent, which

means that there were recommendations to Crown for charges. In 2020,

that number had dropped quite steadily over the years to the point where

it’s 43 percent of charges being cleared by police. Obviously, something

is happening in relation to police recommending charges to Crown

counsel.

[10:35 a.m.]

I agree with the member that we can look at what Crown counsel is

doing and make sure that it’s being responsive to the needs of the

public. But I do need to underline the complexity of what we’ve seen

over the pandemic and the fact that the member is raising these

important issues in the context of overall crime rates in property

crime. They’re the lowest they’ve been since at least 2011. I don’t

disagree that we can do more to drive that even lower, and I think that

we should.

M. Lee: I think all members of the House acknowledge and hear from all of

our constituents that members and British Columbians are feeling very

concerned about feeling safe on our streets and in our

neighbourhoods.

The statistics that the Attorney General requested from the 13

urban mayors he has to respect. They chose to provide this to the

Attorney General, and they clearly demonstrate that things are only

getting worse under the five years that this Attorney General has been

doing his role. These are statistics from the 13 urban mayors who

represent more than 55 percent of B.C.’s population.

Last month the Attorney General mocked our questions, saying: “I’m

not surprised he has a problem with facts.” Well, here are the facts

about this Attorney General’s record since 2017. All is set out in the

April 5 letter from these urban mayors.

The average number of days to conclude a file has gone from 85 to

185 days. The rate of no charge assessments is 21 percent today. In

2017, it was 12 percent. The cases approved to go to court have

decreased from almost 64,000 to only 47,000. Prolific offenders are

being allowed to walk free to reoffend and commit increasingly brazen

and violent crimes.

Why is the Attorney General enabling this catch-and-release cycle

to undermine public confidence in our justice system?

Hon. D. Eby: The member comes to this place from Vancouver. Property crime and

overall crime rates are at their lowest level in Vancouver since 2002 in

both the total numbers of crimes and as a crime rate per 1,000 members

of the population.

Now, I know that what crime has been taking place has been very

concentrated and very visible, particularly in the downtown areas, and

very concerning to merchants, I know, in the Chinatown area in Downtown

Vancouver. These are serious issues.

There has been a shift during the pandemic about how and where

crime takes place. There has been an increase in violent crime. Now,

I’ll say the statistics are less helpful than they could be, in the

sense that Statistics Canada changed their measurement criteria between

2018 and 2019. But I don’t think anyone disputes that in Vancouver,

we’ve seen an increase in random, violent attacks.

Both the Solicitor General and I have been working with the

Vancouver police department to identify these two categories of

offenders — serious, prolific property offenders and people engaging in

these random, violent attacks — to find out how the province can be more

supportive of the efforts in Vancouver to address these issues. The

Solicitor General also addressed issues with the Vancouver police budget

to make sure that they have the resources they need to deal with

this.

I’ll remind the member — I know that he knows, because he’s a

lawyer — that we have had significant changes in the law related to

administration of justice offences over this time period that I’ve been

Attorney General. It came from the Supreme Court of Canada in Bill C-75

out of the federal government, which changes Crown’s approval processes

around administration of justice offences. It’s the law of Canada, and

the Crown is bound to adhere to that.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.

M. Lee: This Attorney General has been hearing from these 13 urban mayors

since December, by his own reports. He’s in these discussions. He’s

having these consultations, yet he’s failing to act. These 13 urban

mayors represent communities including Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby,

Richmond, Coquitlam, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Kelowna, Kamloops,

Prince George, Victoria, the district of Saanich and Nanaimo.

[10:40 a.m.]

The Attorney General can deflect all he wants, but that’s not

going to give answers to these 13 urban mayors. They have set out a

roadmap of solutions that this Attorney General needs to take action on.

The Attorney General’s failed policies are eroding confidence in the

administration of our justice system. He has failed in his primary

duty.

This is what the mayors of 13 urban cities across B.C. wrote in

their April 5 letter: “Prolific offenders are eroding the sense of

public safety and trust in the justice system by residents in all our

communities.” There is no accountability or meaningful consequences for

random attacks, random assaults, rampant shoplifting and

violence.

Why won’t the Attorney General act now to get violent criminals

off our streets and keep people safe in our communities?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows — I know he knows, because he repeated it back —

that we met with the urban mayors. We heard from them their concerns. We

asked them for additional detail and information about what was

happening in their communities, and now we’re working with them on

solutions.

I’m trying to imagine a better way to address any provincial

issue. So I welcome his suggestions as part of this process as we move

forward, but to categorize that as failing to take action when actually,

the reason he has a letter in his hands is because I asked for

it.

HOSPITAL CAPACITY ON

VANCOUVER

ISLAND

S. Furstenau: Yesterday Brishti Basu from Capital Daily broke the news that

greater Victoria hospitals are so overrun that they are considering

renting hotel rooms for patients. An internal memo from Island Health

outlines that hospitals are facing an extreme over-census situation, and

Dr. Jeff Unger says: “I’ve never seen it this bad in the 22 years I’ve

been working in Victoria.” He said that two weeks ago. It’s gotten

worse.

People on Vancouver Island are already dealing with a severe

family doctor shortage. They can’t get into a walk-in clinic, and now we

learn that hospitals are so full that Island Health is preparing to rent

hotel rooms.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister assure

people on Vancouver Island and across B.C. that they won’t be turned

away when they need health care?

Hon. A. Dix: Thanks to the member for her question.

At no time would any patient requiring acute care be sent to a

hotel room, period. The memo that the member refers to was a memo to

rehab coordinators who are in charge of discharge. We do, from time to

time, support people who are ready for discharge, but there are varied

challenges in either their homes or their circumstances that make it

challenging for them to be discharged.

What the memo was saying was if there are people ready to be

discharged, let’s take every means to support them in that discharge.

That’s what the purpose of the memo was for. It wouldn’t make any sense

to take acute care patients and to put them in hotel rooms. That’s not

what we’ve done. That’s not what we’re doing. While it is an extremely

challenging time in health care, given the pandemic, given the overdose

public health emergency, our hospitals on Vancouver Island continue to

be ready to serve patients who need care.

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

COVID-19 IMPACT ON HOSPITALS

AND ACCESS TO DATA

S. Furstenau: This is, fundamentally, a transparency issue. In her article,

Brishti Basu wrote: “Since the province stopped sharing daily COVID-19

hospitalization data and pulled back on how much information they share,

it is impossible to figure out how the virus is affecting

hospitalizations in real time.” So we find out from the press, not from

the government.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. Does the

minister believe that the public should be informed by government rather

than by memos and the press about the state of our hospitals and the

burden that COVID-19 continues to have on our health care

system?

Hon. A. Dix: The answer is yes. The answer is yes, we do, on a regular basis,

including detailed information not just about COVID-19 in our hospital

but the state of hospital capacity in every part of B.C., which I’ve

been reporting on, including to the hon. member, for more than two

years.

[10:45 a.m.]

Yes, transparency is important, and transparency is important to

this extent. When you’re describing a situation in a memorandum, to say

an important sentence: “Please let your coordinator know if you have any

patients requiring extraordinary measures to facilitate discharges from

hospital.” And then list the measures that include, potentially,

providing a hotel room if they’re not able to go home under appropriate

circumstances. This is something that occurs on a regular basis to

support discharges.

The member’s initial assertions in her question are not correct.

It is important to have transparency. It is very important to have

transparency and to provide a proper assessment of the circumstances in

our public health care system today. These measures of dealing with

capacity in our health care system — we have been taking them for two

years.

The members will recall, in the third week in March of 2020, the

decision, the very difficult decision, at that time to cancel non-urgent

scheduled surgeries. That was indeed to ensure that there was space in

our hospitals so that people could come and get the care they

need.

That is what was happening then, and that is what continues to

happen. What is happening in association with that, on that issue of

surgery and on surgical renewal, is the expansion of our surgical

capacity to make up these delays as quickly as we possibly

can.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

R. Merrifield: I feel like the Attorney General has missed the point of our

questions. The mayors’ letter shows how a single prolific offender can

have hundreds of police files yet, time after time, is released back

into the community.

Page 2 actually describes how one offender in Kelowna has

generated 346 RCMP files and received 29 convictions for theft and

assault, is routinely released with conditions but subsequently

reoffends. In my community, 15 prolific offenders are responsible for —

get this — over 1,000 negative police contacts just in one year alone.

Kelowna has stepped up by increasing the police budget by 84 percent.

But the Attorney General is still missing in action.

When will the Attorney General do his job, protect the

administration of justice and keep our communities safe?

Hon. D. Eby: When somebody goes to court — the member talks about 29 separate

charges — the decision about whether or not that person goes to jail is

made by a judge who is independent of government, independent of me as

Attorney General. I know that the member knows that.

That doesn’t take away from the challenge that she illustrates, or

suggests that the province or the government doesn’t have any

opportunity to address this serious issue. It’s why we’re working with

the mayors on this issue. That’s why we have complex care to address the

mental health and addiction issues that drive some people to be involved

again and again in the justice system, in a rotating door

system.

I believe that there are other opportunities for us to address

these issues. But it’s not going to change the state of the federal law.

It’s not going to be able to force judges to send people to jail.

They’re not going to do that. The next steps for us as a province,

within our jurisdictional authorities, are to work with the

municipalities to identify those opportunities.

I know this isn’t a unique issue. I know that when the opposition

was on this side of the House, they had a pilot project on chronic

offenders as well. So this is an issue that, as a province, we need to

address. I look forward to working with the cities and, frankly, any

suggestions from the opposition about moving forward. I assure the

member that we’ll have more to say about this in the weeks to

come.

B. Banman: In the April 5 letter from the mayors, it provides example after

example after example. In my community of Abbotsford, people no longer

feel safe. Here’s a prime example of why.

There was a criminal with outstanding warrants who was recently

arrested for the second time within weeks. He has been charged with

serious crimes, including theft of a motor vehicle, robbery, assault,

assault with weapons, resist and obstruction of a police officer.

Despite three prior convictions for breach of probation, he was issued a

release order, which he breached the very same day.

[10:50 a.m.]

How many times does a prolific offender need to be arrested for

breaching conditions before people lose faith in the justice system, and

they lose faith in this government and, in particular, this Attorney

General?

Hon. D. Eby: The courts apply a federal law, Bill C-75, which dramatically

changed the approach to adminis­trative offences, which is breach

of conditions. There was also a Supreme Court of Canada decision, which

the courts also applied, called Zora, so we’re working within that

federal framework. The member intentionally conflates those things with

what the province can do.

That doesn’t mean that the province doesn’t have responsibility or

opportunity here to address these issues. The Crown will bring the cases

forward to court. They will apply the federal law. When we’re talking

about the decision to release somebody back to the community by a judge,

that decision is taken by the judge.

I’m not sure what else I can tell the member about that. It’s

obviously a disturbing case. We have a huge opportunity, I think, in

terms of prolific offenders, to drive property crime numbers down. I

think that complex care and addressing the mental health and addiction

needs of some folks is really going to help that.

For others, we’ll continue working with police and Crown, as we

have been since the mayors raised this issue with us.

M. Morris: The revolving door of justice with prolific offenders has been

getting progressively worse every year, particularly since this

government took office five years ago. We see the statistical data going

up all the time.

The Attorney relies upon Bill C-75. He relies upon the limitations

that are placed upon them by legislation and by the court decisions, but

that has always existed since we’ve had courts in this great country of

ours. Attorneys General across Canada have always adjusted how

prosecutors do their job, how police do their job, in order to comply

with the changes to the legislation that the courts lay out.

Three weeks ago in Prince George, a prolific offender in a stolen

vehicle rammed a police vehicle while trying to avoid arrest. At the

time, he was wanted on an outstanding warrant and had been arrested and

released numerous times over the past two years.

Each time the offender failed to attend court or comply with

release conditions, including being prohibited to possess firearms, and

ignored the court orders, bringing the administration of justice into

disrepute. At the time of this most recent arrest, he was in possession

of body armour and a prohibited high-calibre rifle with a high-capacity

magazine loaded and ready to fire. He resisted arrest with

police.

Will the Attorney act now to protect the public and the police

from prolific offenders and restore faith in our justice

system?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question.

The member says that I rely on the law and court decisions. That’s

my job as Attorney General, to do those things. It’s not an excuse. I

think the province has an opportunity here to assist in addressing these

issues, but it is a fact and a factor in the challenge that we face

here.

I agree with the member that Attorneys General need to work within

that framework and be creative within that framework, which is why we’re

working with the Minister of Public Safety and with the mayors on

exactly this issue.

I disagree with the member that the statistics show that things

are getting worse and worse. In fact, in the most recent year we have

data for, the overall number of offences is at the lowest level it has

been in Vancouver in the last decade, and in the province, for property

crimes, since 2011. There are issues. I don’t pretend there aren’t

issues, but to misrepresent what’s happening in community at a

provincial level is not correct.

Finally, I know the member is aware that when we formed

government, we increased authorities under the Civil Forfeiture Act that

enable the province to seize property, to make presumptions when there’s

a firearm in a vehicle, when there’s body armour in a vehicle, to seize

that vehicle, to seize that property, which were not authorities that

police had when the opposition was on this side of the House.

Within provincial authorities, we are acting creatively to address

these issues, and we will continue to work with the mayors to do those

things.

K. Kirkpatrick: This Attorney General continues to say: “We are working on things.

We’re in conversations. We’re discussing.” But this government needs to

take it from that place to actual implementation and taking

actions.

[10:55 a.m.]

We need to go back to the basics. People are scared in their own

communities. They’re scared of going out in the evenings. They don’t

know what’s going to happen. They’re scared. That is what the reality is

in British Columbia. Communities across this province are experiencing

more violent and random assaults.

Here in Victoria, there were four random assaults last Tuesday,

including a man who struck a staff member of a restaurant with a metal

object. That was one block away from this Legislature. Prolific

offenders do not face consequences. One such offender, in Victoria,

generated 55 charges that were submitted to the Prosecution Service. Of

those charges, only 22 convictions were received, 23 were stayed, and

eight of those charges were not approved. These were for serious

charges, including assault.

Why is the Attorney General letting these offenders be continually

released without consequences? How are you going to make British

Columbians feel safe in their own communities?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member raises a number of important issues.

First of all, someone who has 22 convictions in a court….

Obviously, there are some pretty serious issues going on with that

individual. The court is applying the federal law in each of those

convictions in deciding whether or not to send somebody to jail. As the

provincial Attorney General, I can’t tell the judge what to do. The

federal law, the federal Criminal Code, is what the judge is

applying.

Clearly, mental health and addiction issues are playing an

outsized role in relation to prolific offenders, and we think that

addressing those issues through proactive mental health services is

going to make a significant difference in the community.

We also know that one of the reasons people feel unsafe is that in

their downtown areas, where foot traffic is way down, mental health and

addiction, people suffering in public — talking to themselves, shouting

at passersby — creates a feeling of a lack of safety. Addressing those

mental health issues through complex care is going to make a significant

difference.

Those same urban mayors that we have been working with on this

issue are the mayors who are celebrating the rollout of complex care to

provide those base support services for folks to increase community

perceptions of safety. I think it’s going to be really

important.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I know the members are passionate about this issue. I feel

passionate about it too. But I don’t believe that misrepresenting what

the province’s authorities are or what’s happening in communities, in

terms of the broader picture, is helpful. I agree there’s an issue.

Let’s focus on that.

T. Shypitka: The Attorney General can be as dismissive as he wants to be on

this issue. It’s absolutely….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s hear the question, please.

T. Shypitka: We’re hearing from the Attorney General on issues that are real,

in real time right now. People on this side of the House are fed up. Our

communities are fed up. We want action right now.

The city of Cranbrook is facing a massive increase in issues of

crime and disorder that are hurting our people and our local businesses.

I’ve been to several town halls on this already, and there are more to

come. The people are upset and deservedly so. Assaults are up 13

percent, vehicle and bike thefts are up 150 percent, and commercial

break and enters are up 280 percent.

My community sincerely feels the Attorney General isn’t taking

crime seriously. When will the Attorney General actually act to fix this

problem and restore Cranbrook’s confidence in the justice

system?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, I thank the member for his question.

I try my best in this question period to be responsive to the

questions that members are asking and to have a dialogue about these

things. I’ll admit some frustration when I can’t knock members off their

script so that we can actually have that conversation. But I do

understand it is question period.

I am well aware of the issues in Cranbrook. In fact, I met with

the mayor of Cranbrook personally. When I read some comments that he

made in the media, I reached out to him, and I said: “Let’s meet and

talk it through.” I met with him, and then I wrote to Cranbrook city

council after that meeting with the mayor. I said: “Can I meet with you?

Can I hear about what’s happening in your community? Can we act on those

things?”

[11:00 a.m.]

I’ll acknowledge some surprise that I had to read in the media the

concerns about Cranbrook when the member is right there and he can come

over any time. But in any event, I am doing the work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I am doing the work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I was happy to brief the members of Cranbrook council about

complex care, about our 3,000 supplements to get people inside with

wraparound supports to deal with the very serious homelessness issue

that they’re facing in Cranbrook, which inextricably, with mental health

and addiction, is tied to some of the challenges that community is

facing.

I was really glad to hear directly from the mayor and council. We

had a very productive conversation. Since then, members of the public

service, as well as B.C. Housing staff, have been working with Cranbrook

administrative staff to address the issues in that community. I look

forward, frankly, to celebrating some good progress on those issues with

Cranbrook city council as we work through them.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report Fraud

Risk Management: Site C Dam and Hydroelectric Energy Project and

the Representative for Children and Youth’s report Beyond Compliance:

Ensuring Quality in Care Planning .

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 14, Wildlife

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of Supply estimates,

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

On clause 3 (continued) .

J. Rustad: Before our end of day yesterday, there were some questions that

were being asked of the minister with regard to some legal issues and

the legal ramifications of hunting. In particular, there was some

exchange between the minister and me. We were discussing First Nations’

right to hunt and whether or not that extends.

I want to start today off asking the minister a variation of the

question from yesterday, which is whether or not Indigenous people have

the right to hunt in British Columbia outside of their traditional

territory.

Hon. K. Conroy: Even though it’s a different question, we did answer this

yesterday. First Nations have the right to hunt when it’s associated

with their traditional territory. If they want to hunt on another

nation’s traditional territory, they are invited as a guest by the host

to hunt on that traditional territory.

J. Rustad: To be clear, the question is whether they have the right to hunt

without being invited into another traditional territory. If Indigenous

people connected to a First Nation have the right to hunt and gather,

under

section 35, within their traditional territory, do they have that

right to be able to hunt in other locations within British Columbia,

outside of their traditional territory, without being

invited?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Actually, the member’s question doesn’t relate to this

bill.

J. Rustad: It does relate to this bill, I would argue. The reason it relates

to this bill is that I’m trying to determine whether or not this bill is

required in this Legislature, whether First Nations have the right to

hunt or not. If they don’t have the right to hunt, then I understand

what this bill is trying to do. If they do have the right to hunt, then

I don’t understand what this bill is trying to do, which is why I’m

asking this question.

Further to that question, there are many Indigenous people —

people who have identified as Indigenous people — who are not connected

to a particular First Nation, whether it’s bloodline or other issues in

the province of British Columbia. That may include Métis, and it may

include people who are not Métis. I’m trying to understand how they fit

into this bill in terms of their rights to hunt within the province of

British Columbia, as Métis or as Indigenous people in a province of

Canada, and whether or not their rights are superseded by what’s going

on in this bill.

I’m trying to understand what that lay of the land is so I can

understand why this bill was put in place. I would ask the minister if

she would consider answering the question I put to her.

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill does not change or affect a nation’s

section 35 right to

hunt. First Nations that enter into sheltering agreements between

themselves have done so, historically, for a long time. Those rights are

enshrined in the constitution. The purpose of this bill is to allow the

host and guest First Nations to ask the province to support their

sheltering agreements.

J. Rustad: In this legislation, under clause 3, it defines a guest as being a

member of a First Nation and determines that “‘first nation’ means a

first nation whose traditional territory includes land within the

boundaries of British Columbia.”

Perhaps the minister could confirm that only members who are

recognized as members of a First Nation, even though they are

Indigenous…. Sorry. Let me rephrase that. As I say, there are many

Indigenous people in the province of British Columbia that may not be

connected or recognized as being a member of a particular First Nation

because of bloodline. There are many issues in the province in terms of

First Nations. This bill doesn’t go into those issues, obviously. I’m

not asking about that, specifically.

What I’m wondering is…. Because of the definition of a guest

meaning a member of a First Nation…. Does that mean that the Indigenous

people in the province of British Columbia that are not directly

connected with a First Nation are not eligible to be guests in terms of

hunting in British Columbia?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I have already answered this. It’s up to the member of the First

Nation to recognize the members of their First Nation.

J. Rustad: I’m just going to pass it over to the member for Skeena in a

moment, but I do want to have one quick follow-up question associated

with that. Perhaps the minister would be…. It should be fairly quick to

be able to confirm, then, that Métis or other people who are not

necessarily attached to a First Nation do not have the right to be

guests as part of a shelter agreement. By definition here, it says a

guest has to be a member of a First Nation. So I just would like the

minister to confirm that.

Hon. K. Conroy: I have answered this before as well. Members of the Métis Nation

are not recognized as hosts and guests in the purpose of this

bill.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Conroy: I have answered this before. Métis Nations are not recognized as

hosts or guests in the purpose of this bill.

E. Ross: I’m just trying to understand what I’ve known for decades, both as

a hunter, a harvester, a fisherman, as well as somebody that truly

studied case law pursuant to

section 35 of the constitution.

The minister just made a comment in terms of this sheltering

agreement under Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act, that said the

sheltering agreement will not affect rights and title as it relates to a

First Nation being able to hunt anywhere in B.C., essentially. The

minister’s comments — correct me if I’m wrong — said that this will not

affect

section 35 rights to hunt.

[11:20 a.m.]

Well, yes, it does. It does affect. What you’re talking about is

an agreement between a First Nation, a host First Nation, and a

government that talks about hosting another First Nation in a territory

for the purposes of hunting. You actually talked about giving the

authority to a First Nation to restrict or allow another First Nation to

go into a territory and hunt. This is under the backdrop, as well, of

current laws that apply to everybody and that speak to health, safety

and conservation. I’ll leave those aside for a second.

In all my years of hunting, fishing, harvesting, as well as

understanding Aboriginal rights and title case law as laid out by the

courts, I have never really come across any type of rule, legislation or

regulation that says that I can’t hunt anywhere in B.C. — or Canada, for

that matter.

If the minister is aware of something that I have missed…. I’ve

hunted in many First Nation territories with no permission. I know there

are a lot of First Nations across B.C. that come to my territory and

hunt with no permission of the First Nation in question. The same goes

for fishing.

We’re talking about rights, the right to hunt. When you’re talking

about legislating the access of a First Nation to go into another First

Nation territory for the purposes of hunting, then you are affecting

section 35 of the constitution.

Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is some case law out there.

Maybe there is some precedent that actually speaks to this. If the

minister is aware of this, then could the minister basically bring that

to this conversation for our purposes of understanding Bill

14?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The province does not currently have jurisdiction to recognize

existing sheltering agreements. The absence of legal clarity has led to

varied approaches, which leads to both the wildlife management and

enforcement challenges.

Sheltering agreements, by way of this law, will broaden

opportunities for collaborative management, and it will clarify the

application of agreed-to laws and increase transparency by actually

publishing the agreements. If there’s harvesting outside of Indigenous

nations traditional territory, they must abide by the Wildlife

Act.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer. I do understand that Aboriginal hunters

must abide by the Wildlife Act when it relates to health, conservation

and safety.

The question was really around the minister’s comments that said

the sheltering agreement will not affect

section 35 of the Constitution

of Canada. I tried to make the point that yes, it does, because actually

what you’re doing is putting limitations on the Aboriginals’ right to

hunt and harvest anywhere in B.C., if not Canada currently. The

sheltering agreement will actually restrict that. It’ll give access

powers to a host First Nation.

The minister’s comment, unless she has some document that proves

otherwise, is wrong — that it will not affect

section 35

rights.

Currently under

section 35, I always assumed I had the right to

hunt anywhere in B.C., and I don’t need any host permission. Likewise,

any First Nation that has been coming into our territory for decades has

not been getting permission, has been hunting. I always assumed it was

always under

section 35 of the constitution, in terms of the

rights.

When the minister said that the sheltering agreement will not

affect

section 35…. In fact, it will if this Bill 14 is actually

contemplating the authority to provide or deny access for an Aboriginal

to hunt in a specific territory.

The question is: does the minister truly believe, given that

there’s an access provision on the floor of the Legislature today, that

this sheltering agreement will not restrict the Aboriginal right to hunt

as laid out in

section 35 of the constitution?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is incorrect in his assumptions. Case law shows that

hunting rights are site-specific, with few exceptions. It will not

affect

section 35 rights, as these are agreements between nations,

between traditional territories. That’s it.

E. Ross: The case law says that hunting is site-specific. Can the minister

tell me which case law she is referring to, so I can read it myself? I

must have missed that in the last 15 years of reading case law. Which

case law are we talking about in hunting, as an Aboriginal right, being

site-specific?

Hon. K. Conroy: Courts have indicated that Aboriginal rights to harvest are

site-specific, including these Supreme Court of Canada cases…. I’m going

to list the actual cases so they’re in the record for the member: R.

v. Adams , 1996, 3 SCR 101; R v. Côté , 1996, 3 SCR 139;

Mitchell v. MNR , 2001, SCC 33; R. v. Powley , 2003,

SCC 43; and R. v. Sappier and R. v. Gray , 2006, SCC

These cases have indicated that the exercise of traditional

harvesting activities is restricted to the specific geographical

location where they are traditionally exercised.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. That is quite enlightening. I did not know

that.

What I understand, then, is that essentially, that will be part of

the foundation of what the sheltering agreement will propose to

formalize in a legislative legal agreement between the First Nation and

the B.C. government — I just want to confirm this — but we’re also

talking about the province’s duty.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’m getting this understanding from the province that there are

two purposes here: to formalize the sheltering agreement for a First

Nation to do this formally with guest First Nations, but also to

basically put together a framework that formalizes the enforcement and

management of the resource overall, on behalf of all British Columbians.

Am I correct in stating this?

Hon. K. Conroy: We just want to clarify that we’re getting the right answer for

the member. Is the member asking what will formally be recognized within

a sheltering agreement?

E. Ross: It was just clarification. I’m trying to understand, at a broader

level, what the province is trying to achieve. I understand they’re

trying to formalize a sheltering agreement that allows a host First

Nation to allow a guest First Nation hunter to come into their

territory, within the confines of British Columbia, of

course.

I’m also trying to understand…. Is the purpose, as well, parallel

to that first purpose, to actually formalize the management and

enforcement regulations of B.C.? I heard the minister mention it a few

times yesterday. Is that a dual purpose, to actually formalize the

regulations of B.C. when it relates to safety, for example, or the

regulations under the Wildlife Act?

Hon. K. Conroy: At the request of the nations — it’s important to recognize that

it’s at the request of the nations — the intent of this bill is to

support greater clarity about how the practice of sheltering can occur

in a way that provides First Nations with confidence that conservation

officers and others will respect this practice and in a way that

supports the conservation and proper management of hunting opportunities

in British Columbia.

J. Rustad: Under clause 3, it talks about: “The minister and the governing

body of a first nation may enter into an agreement respecting hunting in

the traditional territory of that first nation by members of other first

nations.”

[11:40 a.m.]

Yesterday we talked about this in terms of what the role of

government would be, in terms of this agreement. Does the government

then take on the responsibility, in terms of a sheltering agreement

being created, to determine the status of an individual who is being a

guest in this agreement? In other words, does the minister look to see

where that individual is actually registered as a band member and

providing some sort of evidence as part of the agreement that would then

be signed off by the minister?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve canvassed this, and I’ve already answered this question.

I’ll answer it again. It is not the government’s responsibility; it’s at

the determination of the host First Nation.

J. Rustad: Actually, we didn’t canvass that specific question, but I

appreciate the fact that the minister did respond with an

answer.

The question to the minister is: how are these agreements enforced

if there is no evidence or any other information provided as part of the

agreement that guarantees that the intent has been followed?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The purpose of this bill is to allow host and guest First Nations

to ask the province to support the sheltering agreements. Enforcement is

an element of the agreement. It would require identification of the

individuals.

J. Rustad: Identification of the individual. Okay, so I’m…. You know, I can’t

say my name. I’m Joe Smith, who has entered into an agreement as a

member of a particular First Nation — right? — and we’ve entered into a

sheltering agreement.

Now, the question. The minister just said they’ll provide

identification. What identification is it that is required to be shown

as part of enforcement? Is it the status of a First Nation, of an

Indigenous person and their related First Nation? Is it just their

name?

What is the information that is being required? I’ve asked this

question. I just asked the minister, you know, what information the

minister is going to have to look at before signing off on an agreement,

and the minister said that’s between the nations in terms of that. But

now somebody has got to go out and enforce it, and the minister is

saying that they’re required to provide information. So what is

that?

It seems to me that if you’re an enforcement officer who’s going

out and asking for the information of somebody that’s hunting in

traditional territory, and they say, “I’ve entered into a sheltering

agreement….”

The minister said that they have to provide that information or

some sort of information to the enforcement officer. I’m trying to

understand what that information includes. Does it include the

information of the status and the agreement and all these components so

that the enforcement officer can then verify that this person has met

the requirements of being a guest in the agreement?

If that information provided to the enforcement officer is

required, then is that same information required by the minister as

entering into this agreement so the minister can verify that the

agreement is meeting the conditions of this act? I’m not

sure.

The minister looks confused. I see that the deputy is nodding his

head, so maybe the deputy understands.

I’m just trying to understand, as these agreements are made, what

the minister is requiring, the information to come forward to be

presented, before the minister signs off. Then, of course, how is that

information then enforced — so that we understand what the rules are and

how the minister has signed off on these agreements?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Elements of the agreements related to enforcement are at the

discretion of the Indigenous governing body. It may be as direct as a

permit with appropriate ID.

Yes, it’s at the purview of the Indigenous body, detailed in the

sheltering agreement. All of this will be further outlined and finalized

in the work done to implement the regulations by September 1 of ’22, of

this year. As I said earlier, these are all things that we did discuss

yesterday.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES

AND LOW CARBON INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dykeman in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $109,556,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue

consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Low Carbon Innovation.

T. Shypitka: I guess we’re going to wrap up with mining here before lunch. I

always get a little ahead of myself with mining. I could take two or

three days on it. It’s such a fascinating industry that we have here in

B.C. We’ve got such a great industry.

I’ll just kind of finish with funding to our geoscience industry,

whether it’s public or private. I guess the first question to the

minister is: where in the budget is the funding for geoscience, either

Geoscience B.C. or the B.C. geological survey? How much is in the budget

to support those?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much for the question. The geological survey is

funded at the same level as the previous year. There hasn’t been an

uplift there.

[11:15 a.m.]

The emerging challenge is the issue of critical minerals. The

federal government, in its budget, just very recently announced that

they are going to be funding critical minerals strategies across the

country to the tune of $3.8 billion. The deputy minister was in Ottawa

last week, initiating those discussions with the appropriate ministries

to make sure that British Columbia is able to participate in that

anticipated funding.

At the present time, there’s no funding for Geoscience B.C. in

this year’s budget.

T. Shypitka: Yes, I knew that answer. It’s quite troubling, actually. This is

the third year, I believe. There was some funding in 2019 for Geoscience

B.C., and for the last three years, they’ve been left cold.

It really does go against the grain of what the Mining Jobs Task

Force recommended. On page 46,

section 7, they talk about the unique

blend that we have here in B.C., with our geological surveying. We have

a dual organization delivery structure here in B.C. It’s quite unique,

and it’s quite well regarded as being very progressive.

When Geoscience B.C. got together in 2005, we weren’t quite sure

how that would work between the public and Geoscience B.C. But it’s

worked out quite well, and the Mining Jobs Task Force mentions it. They

talk about a review of this dual organization delivery

structure.

There were some questions that they wanted to ask. This new

coordinated approach to geoscience should be informed by a review

assessing — first question: “What is an appropriate amount to be

spending on geoscience annually? What should the delivery methods be,

assuming the values of collaboration, transparency, efficiency,

effectiveness, quality and transparency?” Another question was: “Is the

B.C. geoscience framework adequate to support mineral exploration in

B.C.?”

I guess that will be the question to the minister. What is an

appropriate amount to be spending on geoscience annually?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you for the question. Perhaps if I could briefly

recapitulate some of what we discussed yesterday.

The focus of the department was initially to permit major mines.

We discussed yesterday the steps forward that have been made and a

number of the permits for major mines that have been issued. The next

step was an expansion and beginning to tackle regional mines. We had an

extensive discussion yesterday about hiring the 19 personnel to deal

with some of the challenges in that process.

[11:25 a.m.]

The next step, which we’re dealing with in the immediate future,

is the geological survey. Coming along, coincidentally…. Some of that,

it’s expected, will be funded internally. There will be a Treasury Board

submission. It’s in preparation. The federal government has initiated,

as I said, a process for critical minerals, and $3.8 billion was spoken

of in the federal budget. As I’ve said, the deputy was in Ottawa last

week initiating that discussion.

That’s the workplan. It’s perhaps important to note, as well, that

given climate change and climate adaptation, geological data is uniquely

positioned to help in the prediction of flood and fire and landslides,

for example, given that some of that depends on local geological

conditions. So there’s an increased desire to have the geological survey

assist in the prediction and preparatory work for taking precautions for

communities in that area as well.

That’s the workplan. The geological survey has a major role to

play in that. It will be the focus of activity in the coming budget

year.

T. Shypitka: It just seems to be a recurring theme with this minister, really —

to answer a question with a non-answer. The question was clear, and it’s

something that the Mining Jobs Task Force have been asking for years

now. This report came out. What is an appropriate amount to be spending

on geoscience annually? I think it’s a fair question, and I don’t think

it needs a stepped approach.

I mean, the minister just said that the first priority was

focusing on major mines. Then it was on permitting. Then it’s the

geological data that we need. He told us about the urgency, with forest

fires and things like that. The mapping is required for those things. I

think these things need to be handled not step by step by step but

synergistically. They need to be in tandem with one another, not one

phase to another.

Now, I don’t know if the ministry doesn’t have enough resources.

Maybe the minister can just admit to that. Maybe we need more money.

Maybe we need more funding into Energy and Mines. I’d be all for that.

But this stepped approach, to me…. I just don’t see the value. I don’t

see how we’re getting ahead anywhere.

Geological data is critical. The minister just mentioned the

critical mineral strategy that Canada is going to be funding — $3.8

billion. That’s great. They realize the importance. We need Geoscience

B.C. on board. We need to restore this dual organizational delivery

structure that we have here in B.C. I don’t see a lot of priority or a

lot of emphasis given to putting…. They’ve been roadblocked for three

years on funding, and here we go again. It’s not in the budget, and

they’re left out in the wind.

They’ve got some great projects. We’re talking about low-carbon

innovation in this ministry. We’re talking about the potential for

geological storage of carbon dioxide up in the northeast corner of the

province. It’s a great project that’s underway right now. But we need

more data to map the rest of the province. We could actually be a

destination for carbon storage in British Columbia. Who knows? We’ve got

some deep reservoirs in B.C., which is critical for carbon storage. We

can be leaders, but we don’t have the data, and we don’t have the

mapping that needs to be done to make sure that happens.

We talk about the critical mineral strategy. It’s huge, not only

for our low-carbon future. The critical minerals and metals are in

everything that we see in our low-carbon future, such as solar panels

and wind turbines and geothermal-type technologies. It all comes from

critical minerals. But also for our national security — surveillance

systems, satellite imagery, those types of things.

I see the Minister of Health here. He’d be interested to know that

critical minerals and metals are critical for health care — diagnostic

equipment, imaging, surgical tools. Those types of things all come from

critical minerals and metals.

Of the 31 critical minerals that there are, I believe B.C. has

about 17, 16 of them. We’re a mecca for critical minerals. So this is

not only important to British Columbia, but it’s important to our

national security, our health care, everything.

[11:30 a.m.]

We don’t need a stepped approach on this. We need money in the

ground right now. If that means asking for more money from the powers

that be to bring this into the ministry, then maybe the minister should

say that we’re underfunded or we need more resources. I’d be all for

that.

The minister won’t give me a dollar amount of what’s adequate.

Maybe the minister can answer another question that was in the Mining

Jobs Task Force. Is the Geoscience B.C. framework adequate to support

mineral exploration in B.C.?

Hon. B. Ralston: Perhaps I can just put this in perspective. Since this government

came to power in 2017, there has been an uplift in this ministry every

single year. In fact, the funding prior to 2017 was completely

inadequate to achieve the purposes that the mining sector, both

exploration and operating mines, required.

[11:35 a.m.]

The Mining Jobs Task Force was initiated, and many, if not all, of

those recommendations have been implemented. We have put more money into

major mines, and those permits have been issued. We discussed that

yesterday. We’ve put more money into regional offices, and with the

staff uplift that’s been required through the climate action

secretariat, there has been $1.8 million for climate action for some of

the issues that the member raised. There’s a contract out right now for

the mapping that the member refers to.

In

summary, given those increments in funding every single year,

to the question that the member asks — is the framework adequate to

support exploration of mining in British Columbia? — the answer is yes.

One could use, always, more people, but the direction is clear. The

focus is now on critical minerals, and we will get support, I’m

anticipating, from the federal government as well as internal resources,

and a Treasury Board submission is going forward very

shortly.

I’m convinced that the framework is adequate to support the growth

in the sector that we want to see.

T. Shypitka: We’ve seen an uplift every year, yet permitting times have gone

from 45 days for notice of work to, in some cases, three

years.

We’re seeing uncertainty. We can have the argument. We can have

the debate about…. Investments come in. The minister keeps pointing back

to Newcrest, and that was three years ago, I believe, or something like

that. That was an existing mine that was already there, that already

went through the process. I’m sure there are a whole bunch of other ones

that maybe he might want to try to pull out.

The fact of the matter is that the people in the province, the

people I talk to…. The minister was at KEG, the Kamloops energy group

conference, last week. It was great to see people back again. But if the

minister was walking around and talking to the people in the crowd….

They’re scared. There’s a lot of uncertainty out there.

Permitting is taking longer, so we’re not getting bang for our

buck. If we’ve got an uplift every single year, and we’re at the point

we are right now, I would suggest that it’s not working. Things aren’t

happening. We can debate this all day, but I’m going to have to move on,

because we’ve got another group coming in here.

The minister talked about critical mineral strategy and that we’re

waiting for the feds to kick in this new plan — $3.8 billion. That’s

great. We can leverage some funding that way. I’m hoping a lot of that

will go to Geoscience B.C. to do some work.

I guess the question to the minister is, with this critical

mineral strategy that’s being implemented by the federal government,

does the minister foresee funding Geo­science B.C. in the next

budget?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: As I’ve said, our focus and our priority is the B.C. geological

survey. Geoscience B.C. has the option, which I understand they’ve

taken, to make application to the federal government for some of the

$3.8 billion in funding. They’ve taken that step, they’ve advised us.

Certainly, we will see what happens there, but that’s a step that

they’ve taken.

Just given the comments that were made by the member as part of

the introduction to his previous question, I just want to reiterate that

last year, 344 notices-of-work permits were issued — in the last fiscal

year. That falls under the category of regional permitting. Major mines

permitting — we’ve gone through that: 38 major mine permit amendments

issued in ’21-22; 24 for metal mines and 14 for coal mines.

The picture that the member, I think, is rather frenetically

trying to create of uncertainly just isn’t accurate. It just isn’t

accurate.

T. Shypitka: Well, let me guess. A message to Geo­science B.C. is that if

B.C. can’t help you, then just go to the feds. That’s what I’m hearing

from the minister. We’re not helping Geoscience B.C. here in British

Columbia. That’s kind of sad.

The minister talked about 300 permits being issued. But as we

talked about yesterday, there are 577 in the hopper. Yeah, I hope there

are some permits issued. The fact of the matter is that we’ve got a lot

in the queue right now, and that’s holding things up.

I know the staff is good. We’ve got a great staff, and we’ve got a

great industry, like I said. We just need some political

will.

I’ve heard the minister in the last couple days refer to tax

incentives. Well, that’s the Minister of Finance’s issue. Of course, it

is.

We’ve talked about selenium levels and needing a champion to get

behind initiatives like Teck Coal, the water treatment. That’s something

you’d want to talk to the Minister of Environment about.

We talked about uncertainty on clarity with First Nations, with

the workplan that’s being issued and how that ties in with land wars and

how that dovetails into the ministry. The response is: “Well, you’ll

have to go to Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, or you’ll have to

go that ministry.”

I understand there’s a lot of intersecting ministries, and there

are a lot of wheels in play here. But we need someone in this ministry,

with the minister, to stand up and champion those industries, and those

people, to those ministries, to speak to the Minister of Finance,

saying: “We need some money in the budget to get some tax incentives so

that people will invest in British Columbia once again.”

I’ll head on to LNG now. Thanks for the time, you guys. It was

really well appreciated. Like I said, and I mean it sincerely, we do

have an excellent, excellent staff. It’s our job, here in opposition, to

critique and to make government accountable.

I want to thank them very much for all their time that they

do.

Before we break here for lunch, I’ll just do one last question.

Maybe the minister can digest it as lunch hits us here.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen said on March 7, 2022: “If we

want forward-looking and effective economic independence for First

Nations, if we want good jobs for our children’s children and a world

that is safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG

expansion isn’t the answer.”

The question would be: does the minister agree with the statement?

Part B to that would be…. The minister of state even doubled down. The

Minister of State for Infrastructure tweeted in support of the member

for Boundary-Similkameen’s statement on LNG, saying the member is

“acknowledging the realities of climate emergency and the existential

threat that further expansion of fossil fuel extraction poses to

humanity. And he’s right.”

The question to the minister would be: does the minister agree

with this minister of the Crown?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’ll deal with that question after the break. Thank you for that

question.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.