Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, October

18, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: With my relatively new provincewide role, it's easy to forget sometimes that I am

an MLA, as well, for the community of Vancouver–Point Grey.

I have some very special guests here from that constituency today and would like to

recognize, in particular, the achievements of the UBC Thunderbirds that they represent

over the last year.

The UBC Thunderbirds, just for members in this House to know, have won 177 national

championships since they were established. Seven of those were just this year. That

includes women's volleyball, men's rowing, men's swimming, men's rugby, women's track

and field, women's golf and men's golf.

In the gallery today, we have, from Saanich South…

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member for Saanich South is celebrating that.

…and from women's track and field, Rebecca Dutchak. We also have, from Vancouver–Point

Grey, for men's swimming, Liam Clawson-Honeyman.

Rebecca was the silver medallist in the heptathlon, which challenges athletes in seven

different track and field disciplines. So she is a remarkable all-around athlete and

a remarkable all-around academic. She majored in neuromechanical and physiological

sciences and is a proud Vancouver Islander.

Liam's in his fourth year at UBC. He, obviously, wanted to take some easy courses,

so he's doing computer engineering. He swims jointly for UBC in the national high-performance

centre.

If there was a low-performance centre for sports, hon. Speaker, I would have been

there.

The men's swimming team captured their sixth consecutive U-sports national championship

and have four swimmers representing Canada at the Pan Am Games that start this Friday.

I hope all members tune in and cheer.

UBC Thunderbirds have a beautiful new Musqueam logo. If you're in Vancouver–Point

Grey, pick up your merch. Or if you're at UBCO, pick up your merch.

[1:40 p.m.]

I hope all members join me in recognizing one of our finest universities in the world

that's located in British Columbia, the University of British Columbia and their exceptional

athletes, the Thunderbirds.

P. Milobar: Yesterday was a great day for Kamloops in one respect. We saw a new air service created

with Pacific Coastal Airlines — direct flights from Kamloops to Victoria. In fact,

the first five days are completely sold out coming to Victoria. We still have a little

bit of work to do on the flights back home. After their first-day launch, Pacific

Coastal also made it a year-round service. We're very appreciative of that.

Down marking that occasion are, actually, three city councillors. We have Bill Sarai

here. We have Mike O'Reilly, and we also have Stephen Karpuk here, as well as Mary

Putnam, from the city, capturing it all on their behalf to make sure that we keep

that service strong.

After many, many years of lobbying Pacific Coastal for this flight, we are thrilled

to have it. It is now only one hour to fly from Kamloops to Victoria direct instead

of having to route through Vancouver or Calgary. That makes a huge difference, both

for a lot of government staff that work in the Kamloops' offices and are back and

forth to Victoria regularly, but also for the travelling public as well — and, perhaps,

the two of us.

C. Oakes: I have two sets of introductions today.

The first. It's wonderful to see so many students here from the Alliance of B.C. Students.

On behalf of the B.C. United caucus, we want to thank you for your continued advocacy

and the work that you do. Please know how much it matters, so thank you very much.

The second set of introductions is that I've had my dad here all week. It's been so

wonderful to tour him through the building and introduce him to a lot of my colleagues.

Joining us in the gallery today is my dad, Jim Oakes. Also joining him is my aunt

Darlene Rhodes and cousin Joanne Stone.

Yesterday I had more family, and I didn't introduce them. I better do it now or there'll

be some competition. Yesterday I had the pleasure of visiting with my other aunt Darlene

Hartley and cousins Terri-Lyne Brennan and Wanda Lund.

I'm so grateful to have such a supportive family. I know all members of this House

support their family.

Would members of the Legislature please welcome my family.

Hon. H. Bains: I also have two sets of introductions today.

The first. My very dedicated communication team is here in the House today. They stand

behind me. The Minister of Health knows exactly what it means when you have a good,

strong communication team behind you.

All the work we do in the ministry is what…. They send messages around. From speaking

notes, sometimes I get them from them for different events, labour dispute issues

that we have to deal with and even flush toilets just recently — some of the work

that we are doing.

This group has consistently exemplified the highest standard of professionalism and

creativity. Please help me give them a very warm welcome. Thank you very much for

doing all the work that you do.

The second. Also in the House is my good friend, Hermender Kailley. He is secretary-treasurer

of B.C. Federation of Labour. He spent his entire life advocating on behalf of the

working people in the labour movement, starting with the ILWU and now at this position.

It gives me a great deal of pride and all through the community — the first South

Asian to hold this position.

I'm so proud for you, brother, and thank you for doing what you're doing.

Please give him a really, really warm welcome.

K. Falcon: Today I'm really honoured to be joined in the Legislature by Shane Brienen. Shane

is the ten-year mayor of Houston. He's the former vice-chair of the Bulkley-Nechako

regional district and was instrumental in working with Canfor to ensure they made

a significant $200 million investment in getting the mill reupdated.

[1:45 p.m.]

It's that kind of local leadership that makes me so happy, because he's also going

to be the next B.C. United candidate in the Nechako Lakes upcoming election in October

Hon. R. Singh: Mr. Speaker, in the House today, we have teachers from all across the province. You

hosted them for lunch. They are here for the B.C. Teachers Institute on Democracy.

On behalf of all my colleagues here in the Legislature, I want to welcome them and

thank them for all the great work they do.

L. Doerkson: Today I have two sets of introductions as well.

I'd like to welcome to the Legislature Vanessa Riplinger and Melanie McDonald. They're

visiting Victoria, of course, and attending meetings with the B.C. Association for

Child Development and Intervention.

I further would like to welcome Sharon Anderson from Williams Lake and friends René

and Joanne Liebaert. They are from Parksville. They're joining us today and, of course,

going to all enjoy a tour of the Legislature later on today.

Thank you very much for being here, you folks.

Let's welcome them.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I've got a number of staff from the housing policy branch from my Ministry of Housing

that are here in the gallery today.

I want to recognize Erica Greenup, Rebecca Veilleux, Gord Enemark, Hannah Rabinovitch

and Jade Ashbourne. I want to thank them for the amazing work they've been doing on

short-term rentals, legislation that just got tabled the other day. It's cutting-edge

work, and it couldn't have been possible without them.

So I want the House to please welcome them here today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to join with the member across the way and welcome all the students from the

Alliance of B.C. Students who are here.

Thank you for meeting with me, and thank you for meeting with all of us here in the

chamber. It's really helpful to hear about the top concerns you bring to us.

I have another introduction that I'd like to make. These are two people that are familiar

to all of us, but perhaps not in this context.

Given that the Thunderbirds are here and represent the finest in fitness, I want to

acknowledge two people who are regularly in this chamber, who are spectacular athletes

and demonstrated their athleticism this summer in joining me on the Tour de Cure.

Rob Shaw is a fabulous athlete. Looks great in Lycra. He has demonstrated his abilities

by cycling hundreds of kilometres over two days, which was pretty spectacular.

Katie DeRosa is another fabulous athlete who decided, on the first day, that she would

not just do 120-ish kilometres, but she was actually going to do 160 kilometres. She

did it in fine form, helping us raise almost $100,000 this year for Team Way Hey Hey!

I thought I would just share with the chamber. I just heard from my oncologist that

my tumour has disappeared. [Applause.]

It's great when your oncologist calls you, says your name and says: "I can't see the

tumour. It has been disappeared."

I'm most grateful to the modern technologies that we have and for everybody who contributed,

whether it was smearing some really delightful whipped cream into Vaughn Palmer's

hair, which I took great glee in doing….

I want to let you know that both Rob and Katie have signed up again next year. It'll

be my 15th ride. I want to encourage all members who are interested in becoming fine

athletes like Rob Shaw and Katie DeRosa to please join us.

Hon. J. Osborne: That is one hard act to follow. It's great, great news.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce newly elected Chief of the Salteau First Nation

Rudy Paquette, who joins us in the gallery today, along with James Hickling, general

counsel for the nation. I look forward to meeting with you later this afternoon.

Would the House please help me make them feel very welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I have a couple of introductions.

It's my pleasure to introduce students from Lycée Sacré Coeur in France, whom I've

here on exchange with Shawnigan Lake School.

Also, I welcome Mark Neufeld and his grade 11 Institute for Global Solutions class

from Claremont Secondary. They're getting ready for their train ride across Canada

to Ottawa, Rails for Relevance.

A special thank-you to the members of the Alliance of B.C. Students that we met with

yesterday. I really enjoyed the conversation and their continued advocacy for the

well-being of students in B.C.

Would the House please join me in making all of these groups most welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have three very special guests from the city of Kamloops,

Coun. Mike O'Reilly, Coun. Stephen Karpuk and Coun. Bill Sarai.

These three councillors are here, coming down today, as the members have said, to

Victoria on the inaugural Pacific Coastal Airlines flight. Pacific Coastal Airlines

is introducing a direct flight to and from Victoria and Kamloops, and the councillors

are here in Victoria, alongside tourism and media, to promote the flight between our

two cities.

Would the House please make Mike, Stephen and Bill feel very welcome.

Hon. B. Ma: I have a constituent from my riding of North Vancouver–Lonsdale in the chambers today.

Hassan Merali is active in our community and a strong advocate for post-secondary

education.

He is here with the Alliance of B.C. Students, who have brought student advocates

from across the province to advocate for affordable, accessible and equitable post-secondary

education.

Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, hon. Members, along with the Minister of Education, I, too — and, I'm sure,

as you all do — want to welcome the 17 teachers who are here for the parliamentary

democracy courses; it's the 24th annual.

They are joined here with their colleagues Christa Barberis, Steve Brugger and Shane

Kennedy. Of course, they're here to learn about what we do here, about how this place

functions. I'm sure you'll provide them with very, very good role models for their

students later today in question period.

To the teachers: I'd ask you to please invite us to come to meet with your classes,

because the questions your students have for us sometimes are of a higher calibre,

tougher for us each to answer than, I think, any question that we ever get in here,

because they can get very personal.

I really want to thank the teachers for being here and for inspiring our young people.

Hon. G. Lore: I have a constituent who has joined us today. Becky Major is a constituent, a mom.

She has spent 14 years in the armed forces and is now in the public service, in Emergency

Preparedness and Climate Readiness.

Will the House please join me in making her feel very welcome.

F. Donnelly: In the precinct today, we have Jodie Wickens, former MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

She is the director of programs and services for SHARE Family and Community Services,

a group that does fantastic work in our community. She's a parent advocate and a past

executive director of the Autism Support Network, and she's here to talk about children's

services.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, I spoke about my communications team earlier, but I think I should give

you their names. They are here, led by the director, Brad Spencer, along with Heidi

Zilkie, Joanne McGachie, Carol Morrison and Wynne Lam.

Please, once again help me give them a warm welcome.

Hon. M. Dean: We have members of the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention in

the precinct here today. We had a wonderful lunch with them, with members from all

sides.

[1:55 p.m.]

This is a great opportunity for me to raise my hands and say a big thank-you to them

for all of the work and how they serve children, youth and families throughout the

province.

Would everybody please show their appreciation.

S. Chant: I'll keep this very short. I would like to say a great welcome to the folks from Capilano

University that are here as part of the Alliance of B.C. Students. There are so many

of them that I'm not going to say names.

I am so glad you're here, and I'm so grateful for the work that you do to advocate

on behalf of all students in all areas. Thank you so much.

Please make them welcome.

E. Ross: Last year I made an announcement in here that Kieran Christison and Darcy McKeown

allegedly got married on top of a mountain — allegedly, because I read it on Facebook.

I forgot to confirm it. So yes, it's legal. They did get married, and last night they

gave birth to a 7½-pound baby boy in Terrace, B.C.

Congratulations to the grandparents, Jeannie Christison, Lael and Dave McKeown, and

their extended grandparents, my assistant Gina and Peter Versteege. There is no name,

so I suspect that all of the names I've mentioned will form a committee and decide

on a name.

Congratulations, and I hope to see the baby soon.

M. de Jong: They were welcomed a few moments ago by the Leader of the Third Party, but the students

from Mr. Neufeld's social justice class at Claremont are going to receive a second

welcome because they welcomed me to their classroom yesterday for an absolutely invigorating

one-hour exchange.

I'm obliged to the Attorney General. They also learned that parliament had been placed

on hold to accommodate that visit. So they and I are grateful to her for that. These

are impressive young people that I know will be touring the precincts and are deserving

of our welcome.

N. Simons: Today in the House we have a visitor from the Sunshine Coast. Richard Feehan is the

former Minister of Indigenous Relations of Alberta under the Notley government. He

made the decision not to run in the last election, opting instead to move with his

wife, Kathaleen, to the Sunshine Coast, a good decision for us.

He was responsible for, among other things, implementing many of the calls to action

for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and bringing water to Indigenous communities

and a number of other important accomplishments.

It's my pleasure, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming Richard Feehan into

the chamber.

Speaker’s Statement

BOOKLET ON

ORDER AND DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, as members know, the effective functioning of the Legislative Assembly

is strengthened when parliamentary proceedings are conducted in an orderly manner,

enabling all members of this House to carry out their responsibilities.

As Speaker, it is my duty to maintain orderly conduct in the House, and that work

is aided by the cooperation and goodwill of members in contributing to orderly proceedings.

As such, members will find at their desks this afternoon a new booklet summarizing

proceedings as they relate to order and decorum in the chamber. I'm available to members

wishing to discuss any matters contained in that booklet in more detail, and alternatively,

procedural guidance may also be sought from the table at any time, including…. I can

see people already got it.

Ultimately, we must all remember that respect for the Legislative Assembly is dependent

on the respect shown by members for one another and for the dignity of this institution.

I really urge all of you to read that booklet and please follow the steps outlined

in that, so that will help us to continue with the orderly discussion and debate in

this House. Thank you.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act, 2023.

[2:00 p.m.]

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

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 37, the Crime Victim Assistance Amendment

Act. Our government recognizes the devastating impacts crime can have on victims,

their immediate family members and witnesses and is committed to ensuring access to

support for survivors.

The crime victim assistance program serves some of the most vulnerable people in our

province, including women and children victimized by family and sexual violence. The

program provides benefits to assist people in their recovery from the effects of crime,

including physical and psychological injuries, and to offset related costs.

The legislation that guides this program has not been amended since it was introduced

in 2002, and there are now significant gaps that negatively impact the people it was

created to assist.

This bill addresses barriers to eligibility experienced by victims, immediate family

members — including, specifically, grandparents and grandchildren — as well as witnesses

who seek access to services through the crime victim assistance program.

The bill also improves the program's responsiveness to the needs of applicants and

clients.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act, 2023, introduced, read a first time

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

of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SUPPORT FOR

LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY IN HOCKEY

N. Simons: In June, the NHL decided that themed jerseys would no longer be allowed during pre-game

warm-ups. This included Pride-themed jerseys that showed the LGBTQ+ community that

they were valued, appreciated and welcome in the world of hockey. This was the league's

reaction to a tiny number of players who, for one reason or another, chose not to

wear the jersey.

Last week the league doubled down, saying that players aren't even allowed to use

Pride-coloured tape on their sticks. This is another setback for hockey's efforts

to become less homophobic and more reflective of the broader community, and it's an

insensitive gesture towards a large segment of our community.

When I played for the Cutting Edges in Vancouver, I had teammates who'd grown up in

small communities across Canada where everyone played hockey. They were good players

with potential, only to have that potential snuffed out when the hockey culture made

them uncomfortable and unwelcome. This robbed them of the ability to follow their

dream and robbed their communities of a source of pride. These teammates came back

to play as adults because they never lost the love of the game — a game that, intentionally

or not, evicted them.

In our society, we try to encourage young people to follow their passions and to do

their best in whatever they do. If that's true, everyone needs to remind the National

Hockey League officials that the decision they made goes against that value.

Banning rainbow-coloured tape on sticks is simply not justifiable. The tape isn't

a political statement, and it won't make anyone gay. It's just a signal to young people

that if they or a friend of theirs or a sibling is LGBTQ+, it's okay. They'll be accepted

as who they are. Now that's been taken away too.

Brian Burke has been a strong ally for the community in hockey. He said: "To our friends

in the LGBTQ+ community, don't be discouraged. We've had a couple of minor setbacks

from a tiny number of players, but we've made steady progress and spectacular progress

in this place."

So I suggest we all support the You Can Play organization that's been largely responsible

for that progress, to make life a little bit better for children of today — better

than we had it before.

ACTION ON SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE

AT POST-SECONDARY CAMPUSES

C. Oakes: Yesterday I had the pleasure to meet with the Alliance of B.C. Students and hear firsthand

from them about the biggest issues students in British Columbia are facing today.

As we all have known, students across this province are struggling as they face heightened

unaffordability and a lack of housing. But what stood out to me is the disturbingly

high percentage of sexualized violence in post-secondary settings today.

In May 2016, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act was passed. I am very proud

to have been part of a former government that took this important initial step to

address sexualized violence on campuses across British Columbia.

[2:05 p.m.]

This legislation required all B.C. post-secondary institutions to develop and adopt

a stand-alone sexual misconduct and violence policy before May 2017. However, the

reality is that that act is now seven years old, and more action on sexualized violence

is required.

A study showed that 71 percent of students have either experienced or witnessed unwanted

sexualized behaviours in post-secondary settings. By looking at this number, it is

clear to me that the current system is failing students. Our campuses are not receiving

the necessary funding for services and support to combat this increase. It's time

to do the work necessary to ensure our campuses are safe, welcoming and inclusive.

I would like to thank the Alliance of B.C. Students for their continued advocacy and

bringing this forward.

BANNED BOOKS WEEK

AND FREEDOM TO READ

A. Singh: October is Library Month, and this year the first week of October was Banned Books

Week. Banned Books Week is an annual event that celebrates the freedom to read and

spotlights current and historical attempts to censor books in libraries and schools.

It originates across the border, but it's celebrated internationally, thanks to Amnesty

International. It was launched in 1982 in response to a sudden surge in the number

of challenges to books and libraries, bookstores and schools. It's sad that I have

to highlight the subject, as we are seeing a renewed assault on intellectual freedom

in Canada and the right for people to access diverse viewpoints.

The theme for Banned Books Week 2023 is "Let freedom read." The purpose of Banned

Books Week is to encourage readers to examine challenged literary works and to promote

intellectual freedom in libraries, schools and bookstores. Banned Books Week draws

attention to the harms of censorship,

In Canada, we also have Freedom to Read Week, an annual event that encourages Canadians

to think about and reaffirm their commitment to intellectual freedom, which is guaranteed

under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The event is organized by the Book and Periodical

Council.

Even in Canada books and magazines are banned at the border, and schools and libraries

are regularly asked, more frequently, to remove books and magazines from their shelves.

One need only remember the intense struggles that Little Sister's bookstore had to

go through in the '90s.

These events are not just a celebration of literature but a powerful reminder of the

significance of free expression and the right to access diverse perspectives and ideas.

This is a time to reflect on the challenges that authors and readers face in a world

where censorship continues to exist and proliferate and a time to champion the freedom

to read, explore and discuss ideas that may challenge our preconceptions.

A celebration of literary freedom would be incomplete without acknowledging the amazing

work of those who tirelessly defend the right to read: librarians at the forefront,

teachers, authors and readers themselves, who play a critical role in preserving our

intellectual liberties.

I call upon all in this House to join me in recognizing these champions of knowledge

and freedom.

PERSONS DAY AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS

K. Kirkpatrick: Persons Day in Canada, celebrated on October 18, commemorates a milestone in our nation's

history. It celebrates the work of a group of five women who made it possible for

me to stand here today and for the other women in this House to be here as well.

Now, I was concerned. I'd asked my daughter about the suffragette movement the other

day, and she didn't really understand what it was. It concerned me that it has been

forgotten, how hard women in diverse communities have had to fight to get the ability

to vote and the ability to stand in this House. It made me think it's something that

we really do need to speak to our children about and talk about more in school, so

now I've just used most of my time.

On this day in 1929, the landmark Edwards versus Canada case was decided, affirming

that women were indeed persons under the law and eligible to serve in the Canadian

Senate. The decision was a profound victory for gender equality, smashing through

the barriers that had previously prevented women from participating fully in Canada's

political and public life.

Persons Day serves as a powerful reminder of the relentless efforts and dedication

of the Famous Five suffragettes, whose names we should always remember: Emily Murphy,

Irene Marryat Parlby, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards.

These pioneering women played a crucial role in this legal triumph, and their tenacity

paved the way for future generations of women to participate in all aspects of Canadian

society.

[2:10 p.m.]

As we commemorate Persons Day, let us remember and honour those trailblazers who fought

for women's rights in Canada. Their legacy inspires us to continue to work towards

a future where equality and justice are extended to every person without exception.

REGISTERED DISABILITY SAVINGS PLANS

S. Chant: Before I begin my remarks, I would like to acknowledge that I'm currently working

and staying on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən, specifically the Songhees and Esquimalt

people.

North Vancouver–Seymour, my riding where I live and work, is in the territory of the

Coast Salish, specifically the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations.

I'm grateful to have the opportunity to work and learn with these Indigenous communities.

October is Registered Disability Savings Plan, RDSP, Awareness Month. RDSP is a savings

tool designed specifically for people living with a disability to help them and their

families save for the future.

More than 926,000 British Columbians over the age of 15 have a disability. In Canada,

people with disabilities are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as those without

disabilities. Growing financial pressures for people with disabilities compromise

their ability to live independently and meet their needs.

The RDSP is one way people with disabilities can lay the foundation for a secure and

independent future. The plan is available to people who qualify for the disability

tax credit and are under the age of 60. The federal government matches up to $3 for

every dollar deposited, and through Canada disability savings grants and bonds, RDSP

beneficiaries can receive funding of up to $90,000 over a lifetime. Money in the RDSP

can also be invested, providing more opportunities to grow savings and build financial

security.

I'd like to invite all members to join me in recognizing October as Registered Disability

Savings Plan Awareness Month and also to attend an awareness event that will be on

the front steps of the Legislature on October 25, so that you, too, can learn more

about the RDSP and make sure that others know about it, as well, and support them

in utilizing this plan.

MEL BEVAN AND KITSELAS FIRST NATION

E. Ross: Mel Bevan was born on the Kitselas Indian Reserve in 1941, at a time when natives

were not allowed to leave the reserve without a licence from the Indian agent. Like

many of his generation, Mel was traditionally raised and trained from birth to assume

a hereditary chieftainship role with the Kitselas First Nation, and he spoke his native

tongue, Sm’algyax fluently.

Mel first served as chief councillor for Kitselas in 1969, hosting meetings in his

kitchen. From his kitchen table, Mel helped rebuild the Kitselas Nation from less

than 40 members to over 700 members today.

Mel's knowledge of First Nations culture, governance and practical management is legendary,

grounded in decades of experience as the band manager for the Kitselas, Telegraph

Creek and Kispiox First Nations. Mel believed in governance and independence for his

people. It's why he fought so hard for a fair arrangement that would benefit future

generations.

It's not possible to list Mel's decades of accomplishments in two minutes, but his

legacy will affect our province and our country for decades to come. It's safe to

say Mel Bevan personified reconciliation long before it became a political buzzword.

Sadly, after all his hard work and dedication, Mel did not get to see the day when

his band would conclude a treaty agreement with B.C. and Canada, in this upcoming

year.

Mel is survived by his children, Stan and Susan Bevan; grandchildren, Eric, Jessie,

Cheyenne, Ayla, Zoe and Brianna; and a growing number of great-grandchildren. Mel

will be deeply missed.

Rest in peace, Mel Bevan. A region, a province and a country owe you a debt of gratitude.

Oral Questions

FERRY SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT

K. Falcon: A common theme with this NDP government is record-high spending coupled with record-low

results for British Columbians.

Nowhere is this more true than with B.C. Ferries. Well over a year ago they appointed

a former NDP MLA and the architect of the fast ferries debacle in the 1990s, Joy MacPhail,

as chair of the ferry corporation board. She then promptly fired the president of

the ferry corporation and installed the president that would take direction from this

NDP government. They then handed the ferry corporation $500 million with no strings

attached.

[2:15 p.m.]

What do we see today? Continued missed sailings, continued cancelled sailings and

worse results for British Columbians.

My question to the Premier is: now that your government has taken control of B.C.

Ferries, when are you going to take responsibility for the results that the public

is seeing at B.C. Ferries?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. For so many British Columbians, the ferry

is their connection to relatives, to business, to community events. The Guns N' Roses

concert on the Mainland was cited as one of the reasons for congestion the other day

— people coming over and having trouble getting over for an event they wanted to go

to with their friends.

It's unacceptable to me, and it's unacceptable to the Minister of Transportation,

that people are not able to get where they're going. They're not seeing the customer

service that they need. We've made that very clear to B.C. Ferries. We have new leadership

in place that's taking action.

I want to thank the member opposite for coming clean, on the record, to be clear that

he opposed the $500 million to keep fares under control for people who are B.C. Ferries–dependent

in this province. He voted against it. He voted against them and all the small businesses

that rely on the ferries that can't afford to see higher fares.

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

K. Falcon: Well, correction to the Premier. We voted against the entire reckless, big-spending

budget of yours because we're not getting results.

It's astonishing that after going through a terrible summer full of cancelled ferries

and sailing waits at B.C. Ferries, the NDP response: "Let's add more vice-presidents.

That ought to fix the problem. Yes." So they added four new vice-presidents, all of

them making over $300,000 to $460,000, including a vice-president for public affairs

and marketing.

Well, let me say this to the Premier. No amount of NDP spin is going to take away

from the fact that you're spending record amounts of money and getting record-low

results for the travelling public.

When will this Premier admit that stacking four more high-paid vice-presidents is

not solving the problem, and when are they going to start fining those highly paid

vice-presidents instead of the corporation, which is a waste of taxpayer money?

Hon. D. Eby: I've made very clear to the leadership of B.C. Ferries, and the Minister of Transportation

has, that we expect them to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia to get

around this province. We know there is chronic underinvestment in the capital stock,

the boats to get people from one place to another.

If that member thinks people in ferry-dependent communities think he's on their side,

he's got another think coming. He stood in this place on that line item, on that $500

million to help B.C. Ferries with the costs of fuel that'd gone up, the costs of….

We've seen global inflation impacting all kinds of businesses, so his choice….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: His choice to stand and vote for a double-digit fare increase for B.C. Ferries users

says everything that people need to know.

And he voted against money for cancer care, and he voted against money for enhanced

911 services in this province. Not in a big budget but in an individual line item

vote, he voted against these things. He doesn't stand with British Columbians. He

stands for himself.

GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ON

POLICING ISSUES AND ROLE OF

POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

T. Stone: Last night we were copied on a letter from Clayton Pecknold, the highly respected

and independent Police Complaint Commissioner, a letter that was written to the Minister

of Public Safety. Shockingly, this NDP government did not consult with the Police

Complaint Commissioner as it unilaterally dictates policing decisions in our province.

The letter makes clear that the NDP is compromising the independence of police oversight,

decision-making and engaging in a massive overreach of governmental power.

How can British Columbians trust anything from this Premier with respect to policing,

given the Police Complaint Commissioner is now also ringing the alarm?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I can tell the member is that he wrote to my office, as he did to the members

of the House. He outlined a concern with a particular

section as it related to a particular

other

section in the bill.

We spoke to him. My staff, the legal services branch, said that there's not the issue

that he felt there was. But what I said was…. I asked what would be required. We agreed

on what the solution to his concern was, and it would be an amendment to the clause,

actually removing a subsection, which we've done.

I've tabled an amendment with the Clerks' table, and we'll be dealing with that when

we get to committee stage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Official opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, what a complete and total mess. Yet another example of this government not doing

the work ahead of time and doing appropriate engagement, and they're going to already

bring forth amendments to legislation in front of the House. It's ridiculous. Total

mess.

It's an attack on local autonomy. There's been no transparency on this from day one,

no respect for taxpayers. As we learned from the Police Complaint Commissioner, the

independence of police oversight, in his opinion, is compromised with the decision

the government has taken.

Now, the Premier once wrote the guide on how to sue the police, and now he's stomping

all over our law enforcement institutions. Throughout his career, the Premier has

been relentless in his quest to undermine the police. The Police Complaint Commissioner's

letter confirms the Premier is still at it.

The question is this. Why is the Premier undermining law enforcement institutions

with such a brazen misuse and overreach of government power?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's just straight nonsense. As I told you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I mentioned a moment ago, we were contacted by the Police Complaints Commissioner.

He raised an issue. Legal services branch looked at it. They said: "Talk with him.

There is a way to address it." That's exactly what was done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister has the floor.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to real confusion, it really is on that side of the House. On one day,

the Leader of the Opposition is on South Asian media going: "First off, we have to

call back the Legislature. I've been very clear that not only should they do that,

we would certainly be there and help them make sure that they get that done, in terms

of putting in a bill to deal with Surrey policing transition in a binding decision."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's what he said. That's the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let's hear.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yet the member for Surrey South stands up and says that the government is ramming

through the bill and that they're going to vote on it.

So the real question is: who is the Leader of the Official Opposition? Is it that

member over there, or is it the member for Surrey South? She seems to be having more

clout these days.

Mr. Speaker: Official opposition House Leader, second supplemental.

T. Stone: The fact that the Solicitor General and then the government have to point back to

doctored video clips that completely take it out of context is absolutely ridiculous.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, calm down. Please.

The member will continue.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

T. Stone: I'll tell you, if this was a decision that the Leader of the Opposition was making,

there wouldn't be an attack on local autonomy. There wouldn't be disrespect for local

taxpayers. We wouldn't have brought forward a decision that actually compromises the

independence of police oversight.

We would have actually engaged ahead of time. Again, we would have engaged with everyone

ahead of time. Instead, this government has to come in here and try and clean up this

mess, which has been a total, complete example of incompetence from day one.

Again, why is the Premier undermining law enforcement institutions with this brazen

misuse and overreach of government power?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again, the desperation of the opposition shows itself by trying to blow up something

that was a small, technical issue that the….

[2:25 p.m.]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely. And the solution was arrived at literally in a short phone call, and the

amendment has been tabled…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner is very happy with that.

The real issue comes back again. Where is the leadership on that side of the House?

Where is that leadership? Is it the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition,

who…?

If he doesn't like the video clip, how about this quote. The B.C. Liberal leader "promised

members of the Punjabi Press Club of British Columbia that he will work hard for a

smooth and successful transition of Surrey's own local police force."

Is that the position of the BCUP, or is it the position of the member for Surrey South,

who says: "No, we're going to vote against the bill"? Who is the real leader over

there?

Mr. Speaker: When the question is asked, let's listen to that. When the answer is provided, let's

listen to that. Otherwise, we will be wasting lots of time unnecessarily.

EDUCATION FUNDING

S. Furstenau: For far too long in British Columbia, our K-to-12 public schools have been operating

on a scarcity model.

B.C. school districts are forced to make difficult budget decisions. Programs are

being cut due to insufficient resources, and teachers are feeling burned out due to

staff shortages. We must recognize the fundamental value of an excellent public education

system.

To the Minister of Education: the B.C. School Trustees Association and the B.C. Teachers

Federation have expressed that the current operational funding is not sufficient to

meet the needs of educators and students. Will there be a historic investment in next

year's budget for our public education system?

Hon. R. Singh: I would like to thank the member for the question. We, our government, takes education….

It is a key priority, and I completely agree with you. The work that the teachers

do every day in their classrooms — we are so thankful for that.

I also want to let the member know that education is a priority for us. That's why

if you look at the budget, this year's budget was the highest-ever for education,

whether it is for new schools or new programs.

Also, for the first time ever in the history of British Columbia, there's a school

meals program, the feeding futures program. That is to make not just our education

system stronger but, with what the teachers are doing, helping them in their work

as well.

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

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for her answer. I think that the challenge we have is that

because, for so long, the system has been operating in a scarcity model, the standard

inflationary and per-student funding lifts that come automatically are not enough

to address the deficits of funding for the public education system, for decades.

We need a real commitment to ensure we're investing properly to meet children's needs,

including children with special needs. Many children with learning disabilities such

as dyslexia are unable to get the assessments or supports that they need in public

schools, because the resources are simply not there.

We know that early intervention makes an enormous difference for these children for

the rest of their lives, and many parents are paying out of pocket for assessments

and necessary supports for their children, trying to ensure that those needs are being

met.

To the Minister of Education: what does this government have to say to the parents

who are spending tens of thousands of dollars just to get their children's needs met?

Hon. R. Singh: I completely agree with the member that every child coming to the B.C. school system

should be getting the services they deserve, and they need to have a full and healthy

life in our schools.

This year only we have invested over $800 million to support inclusive education for

students with diverse abilities, with disabilities. This is a commitment, I know,

as I said, that every child should be able to reach their full potential.

At the same time, we are aware of the gaps that are there. That's why my ministry

and myself are having conversations with our stakeholders and looking at how we can

make sure that every child reaches their full potential.

[2:30 p.m.]

COMMENTS REGARDING POLICE SERVICES

B. Banman: Today I'm standing up to read to this House a paragraph from a book that I find and

others find deeply troubling. Frankly, it's profoundly disturbing. I want the House

to brace themselves as I read the following quote.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, I just want to caution you that, you know, we went through this exercise

before. So please be careful with the language that you will be using.

B. Banman: I most certainly will, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your advice.

"Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered activists, people of colour, youth under 18,

immigrants might face greater harassments by guards or police." That is from page

49 of The Arrest Handbook written by this NDP Premier.

Would the NDP Premier of the province of British Columbia please explain to British

Columbians why he saw it fit to imply that the brave men and women who work in law

enforcement in British Columbia are racist, homophobic and target children for harassment?

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to respond.

You know, the issue, and it's a serious one, of the experiences that people from visible

minority communities have with police is one that is widely recognized. The member's

attempt to make light of that — an issue that has been recognized by police, by police

complaint commissioners, by public inquiries….

This was an issue that raised its head in Vancouver when a judge who was stopped on

the seawall by police happened to be a Black man.

The experience of Indigenous youth in their interactions with police that lead them

to have a reduced relationship of trust is a serious one because Indigenous people

are more likely to be victims of serious crime.

So to stand in this place and pretend there wasn't an all-party steering committee

looking at issues exactly like this when the member sat over here, to make light of

the experiences of people in British Columbia and across North America and issues

that police are grappling with — how to serve different communities, how to be representative

of different communities….

I don't think it does anybody any good in this province, and it is part of a continuing

pattern of behaviour out of that new party that is profoundly disturbing to me and,

I know, to many members in this place.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

B. Banman: Just a few weeks ago, NDP-aligned extremists in Vancouver standing with NDP cabinet

ministers chanted that British Columbia's police and RCMP are ugly, killers and hate

kids.

Will this NDP Premier admit that these radical NDP activists lifted their derogatory,

defamatory and hateful speech against B.C.'s police and RCMP officers directly from

the book that he wrote, and will he apologize to our good men and women in law enforcement

today?

Mr. Speaker: Members. When the question is asked, the question is supposed to be to explore the

responsibility of the Premier related to his work. So we have to be very careful.

I just want to caution members on how you frame the question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: To the member's question, there were no NDP cabinet ministers standing on a stage

with anybody when they made those horrific, heinous, outrageous and totally unacceptable

remarks that everybody on this side of the House — and, I would hope, everybody in

this side of the House — condemns. It's that straightforward.

[2:35 p.m.]

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY

K. Kirkpatrick: Following the horrific death of an Indigenous child under the care of the Ministry

of Children and Family Development, media reports reveal yet another damning audit

and prove that this death could have been avoided.

The audit found social workers failed to regularly visit children placed in foster

care in all 14 files reviewed. Surely this must be the final straw for a minister

that has repeatedly failed to protect the children in her care, with fatal consequences.

Will the Premier do the right thing and fire the Minister of Children and Family Development?

Hon. M. Dean: This is a heartbreaking tragedy. No parent or community should ever go through this.

Every day I reflect upon how the whole system failed those children. They were failed

at every level, including my ministry.

As a former front-line worker, I know what basic social work is. I know how we should

be serving and taking care of the safety and well-being of the children and youth

who are in our care. Homes need to be properly assessed. Children need to be seen,

and they need to be seen regularly.

Basic social work procedures, in that particular circumstance, were not followed.

As soon as we found out that the house was not safe, the ministry took immediate action,

including making sure that all children and youth under the care of that particular

MCFD team were visited and were seen, and their placements were assessed to make sure

that they were the right placements for them.

I directed my staff to make sure they could assure me that there was no situation

like that anywhere else in our province.

Mr. Speaker: Member on a supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: This is not about the ministry as much as it is about the minister and the minister's

responsibility. Having the minister reflect is not enough. She needs to have stepped

up and fixed this.

Eighteen months ago, the official opposition raised the alarm about these damning

audits, revealing a complete neglect of youth for extended periods. A clear violation

of policy. Despite assurances from the minister, the situation has only gotten worse.

Appalling statistics expose the minister's ineffectiveness. From a 33 percent compliance

rate at her appointment in 2020, it's now plummeted to a shocking 11 percent compliance.

Given these tragic failures, when will the Premier do the right thing and fire this

minister?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. I share the concern. I know there's a lot

of anger and a lot of pain. I absolutely understand that. What happened in this particular

situation was not acceptable. I told my staff that it was not acceptable and that

immediate action had to be taken.

All of the children under that team's care were visited. All of the placement decisions

were reviewed and made sure that they were appropriate.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. Dean: The audit that the member is talking about was one that we initiated because we were

so concerned about the practice in that office.

We have good policies and procedures in place, and they need to be followed. I've

directed my staff to make sure that on any given day, we know that all policies and

procedures are being followed across the whole of the province. I'm absolutely determined

to make sure that we make all of these improvements, and they make a difference in

the day-to-day lives of all of the children and youth that we're caring for.

S. Bond: Well, what's not acceptable is this minister's continual refusal to accept her responsibility

for the devastating outcomes for children and families in this province.

Under her watch, autism funding was clawed back. There has been a surge in deaths

and injuries of children in care. There has been a rise in youth overdoses — of children

in care. Multiple Representative for Children and Youth reports have been ignored.

The tragic death of an 11-year-old, where neglect was evident and disregard for First

Nations concerns.

[2:40 p.m.]

It is time for the Premier to take action, for him to stand up and acknowledge that

it is not acceptable for the minister to continue to deny her responsibilities in

this portfolio.

Will the Premier get up today, because the minister refuses to step aside, do the

right thing and fire his minister?

Hon. M. Dean: I do understand the anger and the outrage at what has happened. What happened to those

children was absolutely unacceptable, and the system absolutely failed them.

We know that the system of care is rooted in a very long history of colonialism, of

so-called residential schools, of the Sixties Scoop and the overrepresentation of

Indigenous children and youth in care. Our government has been working to tackle that

and to address that because we know that leads to poorer outcomes for children and

youth.

The input of First Nations Leadership Council is absolutely critical in that work.

Because of their advocacy already, we are taking action to speed up the hiring of

an Indigenous child welfare director. We have already strengthened our oversight.

We have heard the call from First Nations Leadership Council to bring in some external

oversight to review the measures that we have taken and to be able to investigate

how they are making a difference in protecting children and youth.

ACTION ON SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE

AT POST-SECONDARY CAMPUSES

C. Oakes: A staggering 71 percent of students witness or experience unwanted sexualized behaviours

in post-secondary settings. This is an outrageous and unacceptable reality. The Alliance

of B.C. Students is sounding the alarm, calling for immediate action from this government.

The 2016 Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act was a first step, but both students

and the B.C. United agree that much more needs to be done. Universities must adopt

stringent, uniform standards for programs, policies and annual funding for sexual

violence prevention programs. Further, it is critical these services are provided

on campuses.

Will the Premier heed the urgent call from the Alliance of B.C. Students, who are

in the gallery today, and commit to these important actions — yes or no?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member across the way for the question and the students who are

in the gallery who put this question to me yesterday in our conversation. Sexualized

violence on campus — in fact, anywhere — is not acceptable.

I do appreciate that the members opposite, when they were on this side of the House,

did have sexual violence policies required in all post-secondary institutions. But

it came with zero money. The previous government did not attach any dollars to that.

When we formed government, we heard that. We listened to the students who were advocating

to us back in 2017, and we provided over three-quarters of a million dollars to colleges

and universities to prevent and respond to sexual violence. So we've been supporting.

We've been hearing the voices, and we've been providing the resources that they need.

We also provided half a million dollars to public post-secondary institutions to establish

and improve anonymous reporting systems. In fact, we introduced a new requirement

that all private training institutions also have to have sexual violence policies

and report them annually, because that wasn't included by the former B.C. Liberal

government.

There are a number of actions that are currently underway. That's around plain-language

support so that policies are clear, providing training resources for all institutions,

targeting supports in various institutions, and outreach. I look forward to continuing

to work with the students to make sure that we're getting it right.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North, supplemental.

C. Oakes: After seven years and two elections, I can only imagine how hard it is for the students

here in this gallery and for students across this province who come here year after

year to be told the exact same answer: "We're working on it." They're asking for clear

action, and they're asking for services to be on campus.

[2:45 p.m.]

We've seen a staggering increase on campuses. Every student in the province of British

Columbia should feel safe on campuses, and they're tired of coming repeatedly, year

after year, and hearing this government say: "We're working on it. A plan is coming."

To the Premier, will the Premier give a straight answer to the students who are in

the gallery, and will he commit to accepting the recommendations that the students

have made — yes or no?

Hon. S. Robinson: We're doing more than acting on it. We're funding it. We're funding the work, something

that they didn't do — zero dollars.

In fact, the other thing that the other folks did across the way is actually took

funding away from sexual assault centres. Who does that? We're restoring funding,

and there's a…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. S. Robinson: …lot more to do. And I look forward…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …to working with those students to deliver for them, because this government delivers

for people.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Doerkson: I rise to present a petition signed by 893 mostly senior constituents in my riding

of Cariboo-Chilcotin, requesting that this House take immediate action to raise the

income threshold for SAFER and to advocate to the federal government for increased

supports for our seniors.

M. Bernier: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from almost 3,000 constituents

from Nanaimo–North Cowichan, who brought this to me because they wanted to ensure

it got presented in the House. I'm hoping their MLA will also support them.

They're respectfully requesting that the Legislative Assembly facilitate a negotiation

process between the Stz'uminus First Nation and Ladysmith Maritime Society in support

of the implementation of a contract between the Stz'uminus First Nation and Ladysmith

Maritime Society to allow the society to continue to operate and manage the Ladysmith

Community Marina.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 54 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 54 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

TO COMMITTEES

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 54 with respect to membership on the Select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services and Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts standing

in my name on the order paper:

[That Bruce Banman be removed as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services and as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement

Act, and after that completes, we'll move to second reading of Bill 36, the Police

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency

and Disaster Management Act, in Committee Room A.

[2:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT

ENFORCEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The Chair: We're just working through a short technical issue, Members. We will be with you shortly.

We'll be in recess until…. Okay, we're done. I think we're ready to go then. Okay.

All right. Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 27,

Money Judgment Enforcement Act, to order. We are on clause 177. I do wish to inform

the committee that the Law Clerk has made a correction to paragraph (4)(

b) to add

the missing "the" pursuant to the authority granted to the Law Clerk under Standing

Order 94.

When the bill is next reprinted, of course, this correction will appear.

On clause 177 (continued) .

M. de Jong: I want to put my comments in context. This is not a contentious section. We happened

upon, during the course of the committee, a rarity. A typographical…. What we think

is, apparently, a typographical error. No issue there.

As a matter of principle, though…. I've just been informed of the mechanism that we

are purporting to use to address that. I have to put on the record, as a matter of

principle, when the committee discovers an issue with a bill before the committee,

I think it should be the committee that fixes it.

I understand the use of the power of the Law Clerk to address matters after the fact.

If we had discovered this a day or two or a week afterwards, I have no issue with

the Law Clerk making use of the authority provided to her. But it strikes me that

the obvious way for this kind of matter to be addressed, when the bill is still before

the committee, is for the sponsoring minister to stand up and say: "I have to amend

this section. I have to add the word 'the.'" We all say, "Yea," and it's done.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think coming back into the House when the committee is in a position to address

it, and I can assure the committee that it would…. There's no issue about the change

that needs to be made. It's not contentious. But I think it sets a dangerous precedent

when a bill is still before the committee for the committee to be informed: "Yes,

we found a problem, but the Law Clerk has dealt with it in her office." I think that

is setting a dangerous precedent.

For the record, I'm prepared to move the amendment to add the word "the," and it's

done, and the problem is fixed. I think the committee should deal with it when it

is still before the committee.

The Chair: We're just going to sit in recess for a moment.

The committee recessed from 2:56 p.m. to 2:57 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll come out of recess so that we can go back.

Hon. N. Sharma: I would start by commending, again, the member for finding this error, which was buried

in the large bill that we had. There's another round of applause for that.

I would say that I think this is a pretty minor correction in there, and I think we

do have provisions that are in place for that, for the Clerk to do it. But in the….

We should just take a recess. We can draft an amendment. We can do it that way, if

that's the better way to do it. It's fine with me.

The Chair: Okay, hearing that agreement, the Chair will put this House into recess until we're

ready for that amendment. Thank you, Members.

The committee recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. I'd like to call the committee back to order. Of course, we're

here in Committee of the Whole, Bill 27.

We're looking at clause 177. The Member for Abbotsford West raised the question around

a need for an amendment as opposed to using the Law Clerk's powers under Standing

Order 94. We're going to deal with that now.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that Bill 27, intituled Money Judgment Enforcement Act, be amended:

[ CLAUSE 177 (4) (b), by deleting the phrase "paid to officer," "paid to the officer," . ]

Amendment approved.

Clause 177 as amended approved.

The Chair: That was the last we had to deal with that. I return to the Attorney General.

Hon. N. Sharma: The member asked a question of me last time we were talking about this bill, and I

committed to providing an answer. I'm just here to provide that answer to close this

off.

The question was whether this would be equivalent to a court-ordered sale and exempt

from the property transfer tax. My team did further research on that, and we were

able to confirm that there's no general exemption for court-ordered sales, so the

property transfer tax would be applicable.

I move that the committee rise and report Bill 27 complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT

ENFORCEMENT ACT

Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, reported complete with amendment, to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Bailey: I would like to call Bill 36, please.

If we could take a five-minute recess.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:19 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Deputy Speaker: All right members, we'll call the House back to session. We are here looking at Bill

36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to close debate on Bill 36, the amendments to the Police Act, which,

as I said at the introduction of the bill, will ensure that no Solicitor General has

to go through the challenges of a police transition ever again. These amendments spell

out and, most importantly, clarify roles and pathways for local governments who want

to transition to a different model of policing.

I would like to take a moment, because I heard many of the comments of the opposition

in terms of what they thought about the bill.... There were a lot of terms used —

sledgehammer, that it was unnecessary. The reality is that these amendments to the

Police Act, Bill 36, bring us, in many ways, in line with other provinces that already

have those particular tools, amendments that are in this bill. I think it's important

to recognize that. When I hear terms such as "overreach" and "sledgehammer," that's

not accurate. We're ensuring the bill has the ability to do what it's supposed to

do.

I also want to address some of the comments that were made by members of the opposition,

mistakes that were made. I'll start.... I know my colleague from Kamloops inadvertently

made one of those mistakes in his comments. That was around increased cost, in terms

of the admin costs. That's simply not the case. I know that that has been out there,

and it's erroneous.

Those costs are actually done on a per-capita basis. The only way that it would be

to what I know that the member has heard about, on the admin costs, is if you removed

every RCMP officer and put them into another province. Then the figure that the member

and others, in particular, from Surrey like to talk about, would in fact be the case.

But it's not, because those officers will be staying here in British Columbia.

The other mistake that I noticed was that some said that the bill is retroactive.

The bill is not retroactive. It is not retroactive.

The other mistake that was talked about by, I think, the member for Vancouver-Langara,

who said that we would not be filing a response to the city of Surrey's suit…. That

is simply false. We will be filing a response. So to suggest that this is being done

so that we don't have to do that — again, that is erroneous.

But that's the kind of thing that happens in debate. It can often get heated. I understand

that, but I do think it was important to put that on the record. I just wanted to

put those few points on for right now.

[3:30 p.m.]

What I do know is that this bill will bring certainty to the city of Surrey in terms

of their transition. I think that's important. People want the transition to take

place. They wanted a decision. They've got a decision. The decision is now in legislation.

It makes it absolutely crystal clear, and that is the goal. There can be no ambiguity.

No somebody saying: "Oh, well, I just don't want...." No. It will be the law of the

land.

I look forward to the committee stage of the debate, so with that, hon. Speaker, I

move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

Those in favour?

Division has been called.

[3:35 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 36 approved on the following division:

yeas — 54

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 26

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting after

today.

Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading of Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023.

[3:45 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 33 — PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 33 be read a second time now.

These amendments make updates and technical corrections to the Pension Benefits Standards

Act, which became law in 2015. The act is the result of a comprehensive rewrite of

pension standards by British Columbia and Alberta, based on the 2008 report of a joint

expert panel. The current standards are highly harmonized and designed to improve

workplace pension coverages in both provinces.

Improving pension coverage involves a balance of applying standards to protect members

and minimizing costs for employers. It's up to employers to decide whether to offer

employees a pension plan. Employers who choose to offer a pension plan incur the costs

of contributing to the plan and complying with both pension standards legislation

and federal tax legislation.

The amendments in Bill 33 update pension standards in three main areas.

The first set of amendments enable variable life benefits to be offered by defined

contribution plans. This new, innovative type of pension was authorized by federal

income tax legislation in 2020 in response to submissions from major pension industry

stakeholders from across Canada.

Variable life benefits are designed to prevent retirees from running out of money

in retirement. Currently members of defined contribution plans receive their account

balance when they retire as a transfer to a locked-in RRSP. The individual retiree

bears 100 percent of the risk that the invested funds won't last for their life.

Members who have the option to choose variable life benefits will receive a lifetime

pension from a separate fund in their plan. Payments will vary based on the fund's

investment returns and the mortality rate of participating members.

Harmonized pension standards for variable life benefits have been developed by a federal-provincial

committee that includes pension regulators. Variable life benefits will be implemented

in jurisdictions that enact enabling legislation after regulations have been developed.

Enabling legislation has been enacted by Quebec, Saskatchewan and the federal government.

We expect that consultation with our federal and provincial partners on a regulatory

framework will take place in 2024.

The second set of amendments reduces the administrative costs of offering, administering

and transferring benefits from a pension plan by reversing changes made in 2015. One

amendment reduces the cost for private sector employers to offer pension plans to

certain employees. A defined benefit plan registered under federal income tax legislation

for a specified individual who meets an annual earnings threshold will no longer be

required to register under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Provisions that protect

members will continue to apply.

We have heard that the cost for private sector employers to comply with registration

requirements since 2015 has caused many employers to stop offering these plans. This

amendment makes these plans subject to the same pension standards that apply to defined

benefit plans registered under federal income tax legislation for specified individuals

who are significant shareholders in the company sponsoring the plan.

Another amendment reduces the cost of administering a multi-employer pension plan

established through a collective agreement. Each plan is given new options for setting

conditions for plan membership that work for that plan. We heard that these plans

are highly variable. Each plan may involve many collective agreements, with employees

working for different employers at different times.

[3:50 p.m.]

Tracking each employee's earnings for two years to meet the current requirement imposes

unnecessary costs for plans that do not need to track this information to determine

benefits. Benefits may be based on hours worked or on the dollars of contributions

received under each collective agreement.

Finally, another amendment reduces the costs incurred by members when they transfer

benefits from pension plans. All plans will be required to offer direct transfer to

a registered retirement income fund or to a regulated Canadian life insurance company

to purchase a life annuity. If one of these options is appropriate for a member's

retirement planning, but their plan does not offer it, the member must make an initial

transfer to an RRSP. This extra transfer may involve unnecessary fees.

The third set of amendments made by Bill 33 is intended to address low member contribution

rates and to improve the financial situation for surviving spouses when members die

before retirement. The amendment to address low member contribution rates implements

a recommendation from the 2008 report of the Alberta–British Columbia Joint Expert

Panel.

Defined contribution plans may implement automatic escalation for automatically enrolled

members if members fail to opt out of the increase to their contributions within a

certain period after receiving the required notice. Automatic escalation has been

shown to help members who want to save more for retirement but who tend to postpone

the paperwork involved.

Recent research on defined contribution plans registered in British Columbia indicates

that a significant percentage of automatically enrolled members are not contributing

enough to take advantage of matching contributions from employers. This amendment

to improve the financial situation for surviving spouses when members die before retirement

gives spouses the right to choose a pension from the plan instead of a transfer to

a locked-in RRSP. Small benefits and benefits in a defined contribution account continue

to be subject to the plan's general ability to require a transfer.

The remaining amendments made by Bill 33 make technical corrections identified since

2015. One example involves defined pension benefit plans that choose to manage the

plan's funding risks by purchasing life annuities from a regulated Canadian life insurance

company. A technical correction explicitly permits these plans to purchase annuities

for surviving spouses who become entitled to deceased members' benefits, subject to

the same conditions that apply to members.

Technical amendments to the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act ensure that British

Columbia's legislative framework continues to operate seamlessly with the federal

pooled registered pension plan legislation, which is adopted in British Columbia as

well as in five other provinces. The amendments in this bill ensure that federal amendments

made in June of this year apply in British Columbia.

Pooled registered pension plans will be permitted to offer variable life payments

to workers who are employed or self-employed in British Columbia. The legislative

framework is also improved by minor clarifying amendments.

Finally, this act makes consequential amendments to the Family Law Act to specify

how the rules for dividing a pension between spouses who separate apply to variable

life benefits.

Hon. Members, we have been attentive to our commitments under the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples

in developing this legislation. We have done an assessment of this legislation as

it relates to aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The amendments proposed by Bill 33 do not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described

by the UN declaration.

P. Milobar: I'm pleased to rise and speak to Bill 33. My comments will be very brief.

I agree with how the minister has characterized this bill and the changes, and how

it will better align things and recent changes with the federal pension provisions.

Pensions for people are such a critical part of their post-work life. The changes,

in trying to ensure that spousal survivorship rights are maximized, are always very

important.

It's something that, a lot of times, people maybe don't think that long and hard about

when they're in their younger working years, but as they get closer and closer to

retirement, they start seeing what's happened over the last year and a half to the

cost of living and those pressures. Realizing they might just be living on a much

more fixed income than they previously had, with much less flexibility as they get

into their pension, it becomes more and more critical, obviously, in their realm of

thinking as to what their future looks like.

[3:55 p.m.]

How will they afford rent, or continue to live in the home that they have? Depending

on how their pension would be structured, any changes to keep things much more cohesive

and in line with what's going on federally is a good thing, and it should be happening.

I will just say, though, that I am a little concerned. We just had an amendment on

Bill 27 on some missed language that happened. We've heard the Solicitor General,

on Bill 36, say that they've had to now remove a complete

section of that bill because

of a lack of consultation with outside agencies. Then I noticed on the orders of the

day today that there's already an amendment for Bill 33 as well that the government

is having to present.

I guess this is just my way of letting the minister know that as we get into committee

stage, actually reading through, there are several other areas that I will be seeking

clarification on, on various clauses, because there appears to be missed language

or incorrect language within this bill as well.

I think it's just a concern I throw out there that three out of three bills in a row

here today that we've been dealing with are all requiring amendments. These are all

government-initiated amendments. It does raise questions on how much scrutiny is happening

right now within government by the ministers across the board, and their legislative

drafting with their legislation, when we're seeing this level of errors, literally

in bill after bill.

As we go into committee stage, the public may wonder why we in opposition might be

questioning: should it be an "and," an "or" or a "the"? It may not seem like a major

piece, but when you read it in the context of an overall clause or

section in a bill,

some of that simple language can have huge ramifications moving forward, especially

on something as complicated as pension language.

We'll do our best as opposition to do our job, to properly have read through the legislation

and to be asking those questions, not so much as a gotcha moment, more so to make

sure that we have accurate and correct language for the public on

interpretation moving

forward. Certainly, I may have misread. That has been known to happen as well. We'll

sort that out in committee stage.

As I say, I just wanted to note that I did pick up — the minister didn't mention it

in her comments, but I did notice it —the orders of the day. Ironically, I was searching

for the changes that the Solicitor General was talking about in Bill 36 when I went

to the orders of the day, and to my surprise, I found that Bill 33, the bill we're

talking about right now, already has a proposed amendment on notice.

I look forward to committee stage, where we can work through these issues. I do hope,

for the rest of this legislative sitting, that other government bills do not continue

to have the level of amendments that we're suddenly seeing over the last three bills

that we've dealt with in this chamber.

Thank you for the time, Madame Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further members, Minister of Finance.

Hon. K. Conroy: With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. B. Bailey: We will now call Bill 29. If we may request a five-minute recess, please.

Deputy Speaker: We will go into five-minute recess. Thank you.

The House recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 29 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

This bill proposes amendments to the Environmental Management Act in order to enhance

protection in our province by ensuring that owners of large industrial projects are

bonded, moving forward, so that they will pay the full cost of environmental cleanup

— even in those instances where their projects are abandoned.

The amendments represent the first phase of the public interest bonding strategy,

which is an initiative that my ministry was first asked to take on in 2020.

The concept of financial security, or bonding, related to industrial activity, is

not a new one. We already require financial security for major mines under the Mines

Act as well as for some sites that are proven to be contaminated.

By aligning with the polluter-pays principle, these amendments to the Environmental

Management Act seek to protect taxpayers from costs when industrial cleanup obligations

are not fulfilled.

Just to give you a sense of what this has meant for British Columbian taxpayers, our

overall financial liability in this province is over $485 million for contaminated

sites. Each year, the province spends over $12 million to do the cleanup that polluters

should be responsible for.

This bill will strengthen B.C.'s existing financial security framework in three ways.

First, it will ensure that responsible parties pay for foreseen environmental cleanup

costs up front rather than at the end of project life, when funds may be unavailable

or where the project owner may no longer be in the province or may be bankrupt or

for whatever other reason that usually ends up with the province and the taxpayers,

who support the province, being on the hook for the cleanup costs.

Second, the bill will create the authority for government to require decommissioning

and closure plans for high-risk industrial facilities, including the authority to

require financial assurance for those plans.

Of course, the final principle I've already mentioned, and that's that the polluter

should pay, not the taxpayer.

This will lessen pressures on B.C.'s fiscal plan.

[4:05 p.m.]

It will ensure that in order to remediate contaminated sites or protect the public

and the environment against forms of releases of toxic or other environmentally hazardous

substances, those moneys that would otherwise have to be spent are put in place in

advance by proponents so that the taxpayers' dollars can go to important services

like health, like education, like child care, like security for children and the many

other things that people expect government to do.

These enabling amendments to the Environmental Management Act provide for a clear

regulatory framework that we will implement in a way that supports environmental protection

and economic growth. These amendments complement the Contaminated Sites Regulation

that we already have in place.

This is the first phase of the project, and it deals with foreseen costs. But we will

in future expand the changes to deal with a broader range of financial securities

that we will expect operators to offer to protect against unexpected catastrophe.

We will of course be taking that out to the public and to industry and to stakeholders

for consultation.

British Columbians deserve accountability. They deserve greater enforcement of the

polluter-pay principle to strengthen environmental protection. There are no consequential

amendments proposed as a result of the bill, but by requiring industry to proactively

prepare decommissioning and closure plans, our government will incent high-risk industrial

projects to reduce their environmental liabilities, by putting in place planning to

build their facilities in such a way that the risk of disaster or environmental cleanup

or the costs of closure at the end of operation will be less. Therefore, at the same

time, the public and the public interest and the environment will be better protected.

It's probably useful to talk a little bit about the background that led to my ministry

bringing these legislative amendments forward. Most recently, we had to intervene

and address active and imminent spills from an abandoned pulp mill site, Neucel in

Port Alice, beginning in 2019.

To date, my ministry has incurred spill response costs exceeding $116 million, because

the owner of the site simply left it and left the country. There was no one from whom

to seek support, damages, costs or expenses to protect what was an imminent environmental

catastrophe from aging infrastructure, toxic chemicals near marine life in which the

community and Indigenous and First Nations were dependent.

If decommissioning and closure plans, if security and cost recovery requirements had

been imposed and used in relation to the Neucel pulp mill site at the front end, the

province would have had a legal basis to have recovered our costs. But we don't.

There are other, and many, good examples of industries conducting proactive site cleanup

in working with my ministry, which these amendments would make a requirement for all

high-risk industry. In other words, we're leveling the playing field so that the many,

many industrial operations and companies that take their responsibility for environmental

protection seriously are not at a disadvantage to those who do not.

Let me give you an example. The tiskʷat pulp mill in Powell River ceased production

in 2021 and announced permanent closure in 2023. Paper Excellence is the project owner

and has conducted proactive environmental cleanup over recent years and is working

to properly decommission the site to ensure that the environment and the people who

live in that environment are protected.

These amendments to the Environmental Management Act will not require the owner of

tiskʷat to do anything, other than what they're already doing, other than in future

to prepare plans to indicate that they are going to do what they've already clearly

demonstrated they are doing, they accept as their responsibility, and they're doing

as a responsible corporate citizen.

[4:10 p.m.]

What it will affect is those industries, those industrial site owners and other proponents

who might not, in fact, have undertaken these important proactive and socially and

community responsible actions to ensure that the consequences of their industrial

operation — the leftover hazardous substances or toxins or effects on the land, contamination,

other effects on their sites — will, in fact, be cleaned up, not at the taxpayer expense,

but at their expense, as it should be.

I don't have much more to say on this bill. I look forward to hearing from spokespeople

for the official opposition and other parties if they have comments to add. I look

forward to committee stage and getting into some of the detailed questions that I

know will come, but I'm pretty sure that all members of this House support the principle

of corporate responsibility and polluter-pay. Thank you very much.

R. Merrifield: It's always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Kelowna-Mission. I just want

to take a pause, as I start here, to envision the breathtaking expanse of British

Columbia — those towering mountains, the sprawling forests, the serenity of our coastlines.

This natural beauty is not just an asset, but our inheritance and our legacy. With

this splendour does come responsibility.

Today I'm on my feet in this place, on behalf of the constituents I represent and

also all of British Columbia, to discuss the implications and aspirations of this

Environmental Management Amendment Act, also known as Bill 29.

First and foremost, let me express my gratitude for renewed attention to our environment

that this bill exemplifies. I am somewhat surprised that the minister didn't choose

to take his full time and go a full two hours in talking about the merits of this

bill. But having said that, his brevity allows me to stand to my feet a little bit

quicker.

At the heart of Bill 29 lies a principle, and it's fundamental in its essence but

profound in its implications. Those who create environmental challenges bear the onus

of their rectification.

In an era where British Columbians are continuously challenged by environmental and

climate concerns, it is reassuring to see a piece of legislation that seeks to address

a portion of those concerns, especially in an era where our federal government has

telegraphed a focus on the mining industry, as well as the desperate need for rare

earth minerals due to our press towards electrification. It is so important that we

protect our environment while moving forward our economy.

Held in balance, it is also imperative that industry has as much certainty as possible

with respect to legislation and regulation, and that these are done in a timely manner

to ensure that investment dollars continue to come to B.C. That's not the case right

now, and we see capital investment dollars lacking and our industries shrinking. That's

going to severely affect British Columbians and their paycheques. It will severely

affect British Columbians and their futures. Economists estimate a decrease of $28

billion yearly due to NDP policies.

Central to this bill is the principle that those who pose environmental risks and

challenges must shoulder the responsibility and cost of mitigating those challenges.

But we tread a thin line between the demands of industry and the sacred trust of environmental

sustainability. It's heartening to note that Bill 29 seeks to balance this delicate

equation. It fortifies the ethos of the polluter-pays principle.

To delve deeper into the specifics, the bill also presents provisions that are not

just pragmatic, but also pertinent. It aims to repeal the holder's authority to abandon

a permit or approval, and instead, it furnishes the government with the authority

to order the preparation of a decommissioning and closure plan; the actual decommissioning

and closure of a facility; the posting of security to safeguard the costs of these

procedures; and, if a facility is judged as abandoned, the government has the right

to undertake decommissioning and subsequently recover any associated costs.

[4:15 p.m.]

Those are commendable steps. However, there is an uncanny sense of déjà vu, as I reviewed

them. Diving deeper, this bill actually represents and presents certain mechanisms

that, while pragmatic, strangely felt familiar. The proposal to repeal a holder's

casual abandonment of their commitments and the empowerment of the government to enforce

measures for responsible decommissioning echo the tenets of the Spill Cost Recovery

Regulation that was put into place by the B.C. United, a regulation that, while we

sat on that side of the chamber, we introduced, understanding its sheer necessity.

It saddens me to remember how, in a swift move, this commendable regulation was repealed

by the NDP government in the early days of their first term. Yet today, history seems

to have come full circle. The essential provisions of that regulation are being introduced

in this bill, now specific, and, as the minister introduced, phase 1 on decommission

and closure — almost seven years, two terms and two Premiers later.

The pertinent question is: why the initial repeal, then? The efficacy of the polluter-pays

principle was evident then and remains evident now. Well, then, it means that politics

and bureaucracy were at play, politics that we saw evidenced in Site C when it came

to a complete shutdown after taking over government, resulting in more time and cost

but no greater outcome or increase in power generation — clean power, power needed

by British Columbians and industry.

The repeal of the previous bill resulted in the same: more money, more time and maybe

even more pollution, and, as the minister, in his introduction, talked about, more

cost to the taxpayers, with nothing but delay and politics. Nonetheless, it's a positive

sign that this government is realigning itself with what we, the B.C. United, believed

in and acted upon in our tenure.

As the minister noted, I, too would like to draw attention to a few significant clauses

in the bill: the flexibility of suspending a permit or approval if warranted, the

repeal of a permit holder's authority to merely abandon their commitments, then a

new division focused on decommissioning and facility closure. It sets out procedures,

expectations, responsibilities and government involvement if facilities are deemed

abandoned or non-compliant. Lastly, an illumination of the broad strokes of regulation-making

powers, including consultations with Indigenous communities and local governments.

Now let's shift our focus just for a moment to the critical implications of Bill 29

on the economic drivers of British Columbia, which are deeply entwined with our natural

environment. This legislation holds the potential to reshape industries that have

long been the lifeblood of our province. Both the potential to help and give certainty

could also harm with undue bureaucracy and cost.

Firstly, the mining industry. British Columbia's mining sector has been a cornerstone

of our economy for generations, and as we move towards a future increasingly reliant

on electrification and technology, the demand for rare earth minerals is skyrocketing.

Bill 29's commitment to environmental protection is commendable, but we must tread

carefully to ensure that this transition does not stifle the growth of our mining

industry. The mining sector needs clarity on the timelines for implementing these

changes to plan and invest wisely.

Secondly, the natural gas industry. We're going to hear more from one of my colleagues

in just a little bit on how this impact could be seen, but it's an economic powerhouse

in our province. In fact, we see that the deficit that's being created is actually

because LNG is down somewhat in the province. As we look towards a cleaner energy

future, natural gas can serve as a transition bridge.

However, this industry faces uncertainty about how Bill 29 will impact its operations

and commitments. We must strike a balance between environmental responsibility and

the economic benefits derived from our natural resources.

Three, forestry. Our forests are an essential part of British Columbia's identity

and economy. The forestry industry has faced numerous challenges in recent years,

from wildfires to pest infestations, and Bill 29's provisions for decommissioning

closures of facilities raise questions about the forestry sector's ability to adapt

and remain competitive. We need a clear understanding of the implications of this

bill on forestry companies and the communities that rely on them.

[4:20 p.m.]

Four, our Indigenous nations. Indigenous partnerships are finally starting to really

see economic gains, as they've played a vital role in our resource sectors. Bill 29

acknowledges the importance of consulting with Indigenous communities, but the specifics

of how Indigenous partnerships work — and how that liability, security and bonding

will transfer — still remains to be seen. The ability for Indigenous nations to partner

effectively in economic ventures must be protected, and their voices must be heard

in the regulatory process.

Fifthly are bonding requirements. Another critical aspect of Bill 29 is the requirement

for posting security to cover the costs of decommissioning and closure. The question

arises: how large will these bonding requirements be? It's crucial that these requirements

are reasonable and transparent and do not create undue financial burdens on industries

that are already navigating a complex landscape.

It's undeniable that Bill 29 raises important questions, and it's incumbent upon us

to seek answers. While the intent behind this legislation is noble, the devil is often

in the details. We cannot afford to leave too much to be determined by regulations

or allow uncertainty to paralyze our industries. However, while we welcome the framework,

there is still an elephant in the room that we cannot ignore. We remain concerned

about the time frames of implementation. How soon will these provisions be actualized?

With businesses, particularly in the natural resource sector, grappling with multifaceted

challenges, how will this transition pan out? The timelines are blurry, and the actual

bearing of this bill on high-risk industrial projects remains ambiguous. Implementation

is the real game-changer.

Consider another anecdote of a mining company currently operating in northern B.C.

This is a fictitious mining company, by the way. They're aware of this looming legislation

but are unsure of its enactment timeline. This uncertainty might lead them to postpone

vital eco-friendly upgrades, thinking they might be pre-emptive. Such delays could

further harm our environment; such delays could further harm our economy.

Why would a company want to put investment dollars into a province where the goalposts

could change? Why wouldn't they just wait until they know the full scope of all the

requirements of regulation? It's paramount that this bill does not remain ensnared

in bureaucratic red tape but sees swift and effective implementation.

I have some very valid reasons for being concerned about timelines and implementation.

If we recall, this same NDP government has announced the new Surrey hospital three

separate times. In fact, at the last announcement, they even brought in construction

equipment to mask the fact that behind their podium was an empty field. What's worse

is that every time that they re-announce it, the timeline gets farther away, and the

cost gets larger.

This government has a history of this. If you need something announced, they do a

great job. They'll say the right things, but with this bill's implementation, we need

to know that it is imminent, because where they fall down is implementation of their

announcements. B.C.'s environment and our economy is not a game. We cannot simply

use these things as tools for political advantage. They're too important.

I urge the government to tighten up on the important details around timelines and

implementation, tighten up and deliver what is promised in this legislation, but also

to leave less to regulation. Too much is left to regulation, and this raises concerns

about the impact on all of our economic drivers, as well as our Indigenous partners

and our environment. As stewards of British Columbia's future, we must ensure that

this bill results in meaningful, timely, fair and balanced action.

In conclusion, Bill 29 presents a promising framework for environmental management,

but it also adds questions that we will need answers to, particularly concerning the

timing and the implementation of its provisions and the details of some of the regulations

proposed.

As the official opposition, we are duty-bound to scrutinize, to question and to collaborate.

I eagerly await a chance to explore this bill further at the committee stage, ensuring

that Bill 29 isn't just a declaration of intent but a clarion call for decisive action.

J. Rice: I appreciate the opportunity today to speak to Bill 29, the amendments to the Environmental

Management Act. I wanted to just talk about how important this type of legislation

is to my community, to my constituents in the North Coast.

[4:25 p.m.]

There are plenty of examples here of where heavy industries have made a lot of money

from the resources within the North Coast region. After they have accumulated the

wealth that they have, and often depleted the resources, particularly a lot of fish

resources, they have left our community.

While I'm clear that the jobs that those industries have created and have provided

for my constituents over the years…. When they have left, they have often left a mess:

abandoned buildings, fish plants, boats, barrels of aviation fuel on a dock leaking

into the coastal waters off Bella Bella on a site called Namu.

Namu is a particular issue close to me and really important to the Heiltsuk First

Nation. It's a location that was once a burial site for their ancestors. It has had

carbon dating work done to 14,000 years ago. So it's one of the oldest known archaeological

sites that we have in British Columbia. And we had a lot of fish-processing companies.

I don't want to name them because there are a few, and I don't want to particularly

identify one because ownership has changed. But these are big players in the British

Columbia economy.

I've been working on the issue of Namu, trying to support the Heiltsuk First Nations,

whose territory Namu is situated on, reclaim their territory back but also reclaim

it in a way that they can actually go back to living, to making an earning, to having

access to a really culturally important site to them without the risks, without contamination.

We have the concept of "polluter pays," but in this case, and in other cases within

my riding, the polluter has never paid. The polluter has made life worse for people

on the coast. They have degraded the environment, closing down food, social and ceremonial

harvesting sites because they essentially packed up and left.

In some situations, it's like they closed the light and shut the door and left everything

— paycheques, pay stubs, papers, office supplies, equipment, dangerous goods, as I

mentioned earlier, barrels of aviation fuel, hydraulic fluid, oils. And there's no

way of holding them accountable.

The legislation of Bill 29 helps rectify that situation and creates a situation where

this can't continue. This type of behaviour has gone on for a very long time. Our

economy relies on the responsible management of our natural resources, and that includes

the very high standards of environmental protection.

While I can appreciate some of the previous speaker's concerns around attracting the

industry and the businesses that we want to our province, I believe in 2023 most businesses

now understand the importance of having environmental integrity. And they need that

for their social capital, particularly to operate in Indigenous communities. Those

of which in my community all have very high environmental standards and stewardship

practices.

[4:30 p.m.]

I absolutely support this legislation. It absolutely ensures high-risk industrial

projects have the financial resources in place to pay the full cost of an environmental

cleanup if their projects are abandoned. I think that's particularly important because,

in my region, there are companies that have simply done the damage and then claim

bankruptcy. There's no accountability, and the pollution is just ongoing. Without

a robust bond system in place, who pays for that?

I think it's really important that we do include the aspect of having a public interest

bonding strategy. So I'm glad that this legislation includes this, that it includes

a robust framework to hold companies responsible for their site cleanups and the reclamation.

These amendments in this legislation are proactive, reducing the need for cost recovery

by planning for cleanup costs throughout a project's life, which is critical. Existing

measures within the act provide government with the ability to address retroactive

cases of contamination — really important, and Namu being an example.

The Háiɫzaqv have such visions for their territory, where they had a village site,

where people lived, where they participated in a robust economy. Right now it is a

really unsafe site to be on, to work on, to visit. I visited Namu at great risk. So

we need mechanisms in place to give back what is rightfully theirs to have and to

steward. We have to do that by holding the previous companies accountable for the

mess that they have left.

Saying that, this includes comprehensive engagement with Indigenous peoples and input

from industrial operators and businesses as well as local governments, organizations

and associations, and the public. So we're going to gather a lot of information, and

we're going to hear from a lot of diverse interests with this piece of legislation.

I think we can protect the future of B.C.'s ecosystems and resources at the same time

as growing a strong and sustainable economy. I don't think the two have to come to

combat with each other. The notion of jobs or the environment…. I'm so glad that we

actually don't hear that rhetoric as much, but I do understand there's sentiment there,

and I think we need to move on from that.

I can talk a little bit about the public interest bonding strategy. The strategy is

a mandate commitment of the Minister of Environment to ensure owners of high-risk

industrial projects have the financial resources already in place — this is as I mentioned

earlier — to pay the full cost of the environmental cleanup if the projects are abandoned.

So the strategy aims to guarantee that funds are available to pay for the environmental

cleanup even if a company abandons the facility. It aims to ensure that government

can recover public expenditures spent on cleanup, safeguarding taxpayer money and

government funds. It transfers the environmental risk to the polluters, holding them

accountable for their business practices.

The strategy also aims to provide industry with an incentive to actively reduce and

manage pollution and site liabilities and recover financial security at the end of

a project. It also aims to benefit the province's ecosystems and biodiversity by reducing

the cumulative effects of poor environmental practices.

What will the revised legislation authorize? The Environmental Management Act amendments

will allow government to require site decommissioning and closure, including approved

plans; require financial security in relation to orders under the act; register a

certificate of judgment — a lien, essentially — as a cost recovery tool.

[4:35 p.m.]

It also authorizes introducing stop-work orders if responsible parties are not in

compliance. And to create new regulations to implement the strategy — i.e., the authority

of the director making the order, content of decommissioning and closure plans, and

when plans must be implemented and by whom.

If this legislation passes, which I hope it does, a comprehensive engagement and assessment

will follow these legislative amendments to establish regulations that protect B.C.'s

natural landscape and support its economic future. The engagement will, of course,

involve Indigenous peoples and the other stakeholders I mentioned, such as industry

and local governments and not-for-profit organizations.

The new regulation will include a transition period to give industry time to adapt.

It's important that we get this right. New regulations will be brought forward as

soon as we're confident that we have the best approach possible. Of course, we don't

want industry to be concerned or feel threatened, as the previous speaker was alluding

to or mentioning in her speech on this bill.

Projects with the highest potential risk will be a priority, with risk assessed on

a project-by-project basis. Existing and future high-risk industries regulated under

the Environmental Management Act will also be considered.

The first phase of the strategy focuses on foreseen cleanup costs. Unforeseen costs

may be considered under a broader range of statutes in future phases. This will help

ensure a coordinated system of financial protection — that financial protection is

established across natural resource ministries.

I don't know if I want to go on, but I think it's just important to mention that companies

abandoning an industrial site without meeting their cleanup obligations can cost the

province tens of millions of dollars annually. Subscribing to the notion of polluter

pays is essentially one of the aspects that we're trying to address in this legislation.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I can't see the Chair.

Deputy Speaker: You can just call me honourable.

J. Rice: I realized the chair positions had shifted.

I think I'll leave my remarks at that, but just reiterate how important this legislation

is to my constituents in the North Coast, particularly Indigenous communities that

have had resource extraction activities deplete a lot of their resources that are

rightfully theirs to access and have left, essentially, in some situations, catastrophes.

I think this type of legislation is long overdue. I know my constituents will support

it, and therefore, I'm absolutely willing and looking forward to supporting this Bill

Deputy Speaker: Member for Skeena.

E. Ross: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome back to the chair — honourable, not previous designation.

Another honour to get up and speak to Bill 29, the Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2023.

A lot of what we talk about takes me back to where I got my start in 2003. Where I

got my start was environmental remediation. I just picked up the ball where previous

leaders in my First Nation had ended with not much success, sadly, because in Kitimat,

we had over 60 to 70 years of industrial development. You can't really blame anybody

for the environmental damage that was done back then, because nobody really looked

at the environment through the lens that we do today, including First Nations.

I had a contaminated site right next to my village that I was going to clean up, and

I was going to find the polluter-pay principle to be employed, only to find out that

was a dump that my people used. We put in car batteries and transformers and oil and

diesel. We ended up having to remediate that land using our own coin.

[4:40 p.m.]

It's easy to point fingers, but you can't really judge what happened 60 or 70 years

ago. Mind you, all of that work we did in terms of trying to remediate the Kitimat

River, which had been backfilled for residential purposes, that was altered with diking

for the community of Kitimat, that was damaged by overflow from the local sewage from

the community of Kitimat and on and on and on….

We looked at the damage of Douglas Channel itself. The ocean…. The bottom had been

contaminated through 40, 50 years of unchecked pollution. My predecessors worked hard

to try to remediate that, but they didn't have the tools that my band acquired in

2004 when the Haida court case came about.

We didn't just sit back and think about remediation only. We thought about mitigating

in terms of future projects, including our own projects. We had to mitigate the impact

of what we were planning to do. It was fairly easy to see the mitigation that had

to be put in place based on the past history of Kitimat itself. We just wanted to

do things in a better manner, and that was before environmental management became

a buzzword, a political word.

In fact, it's quite gratifying to see the issue of a bond — a polluter-pays bond —

being incorporated into some of the agreements that the industry will actually sign

on to once this legislation is passed.

Contrary to popular belief, the Haisla First Nation knew exactly what we wanted to

achieve in terms of environmental management. We actually put into our impact benefit

agreements with LNG the polluter-pays principle, and they had to put up a bond. That

was 15 years ago.

There wasn't any real legislation to actually back up what we're talking about. Mind

you, at the time, the B.C. Liberal government actually supported us. When industry

balked at the idea of this bond going in through an IBA and went to the provincial

government, the provincial government told them: "You better do as they say." That

was back in the days when the Haida court case was still being analyzed and interpreted,

but it worked.

I heard speakers talking about this, saying that they're glad that the idea of jobs

is not being presented here in debate. Well, I'm going to bring it up, because it's

easy to say that jobs are not an issue when you haven't suffered through generations

of poverty — it's easy — and the violence of poverty, the humiliation of poverty in

the 20th century in Canada, in the 21st century in Canada.

Yes, jobs matter. In fact, the turnaround of my community was not just the wealth

we acquired for our band but the fact that a new generation of First Nations people

got jobs in the forest industry and the LNG industry.

If my kids and my grandkids were still talking about the Indian Act and poverty in

their adult years, then all of us as leaders have failed. That's a shame, because

all the tools to actually uplift First Nations and non–First Nations out of poverty

had been in place since 2004.

I attribute jobs to the turnaround of the people in my community. I get non-Aboriginals

all over the place stopping me in the street and thanking me for the work that we

did on LNG, not knowing that we did a tremendous amount of work on forestry as well,

a tremendous amount of work on mining. It matters.

[4:45 p.m.]

In fact, the amount of revenue that flowed through the B.C. government just on one

LNG project alone, LNG Canada…. Even though the largest tax break in B.C. history

was given to LNG Canada, revenue still flowed through the B.C. government.

That is what gives the B.C. government the ability to spend money on hospitals and

roads and doctors and nurses and teachers. You can't just wipe away the idea of a

job or investment, because you can only take so much tax out of the taxpayer without

an economy parallel with that to fill up government coffers.

In terms of forestry, I agree with the speaker saying that there was a time in Canada

when environmental protection wasn't a priority. But it's not a brand-new issue that

just, remarkably, showed up in the Legislature today.

I was working for a water taxi from 1993 to 2003, and I saw the deplorable standards

that the forest industry was employing at the time. I did see the barrels of oil abandoned,

cables all over the place, trucks and cars on logging roads just abandoned by the

company. They up and left.

In that same time, that ten-year period, I saw it get cleaned up. It was remarkable,

walking along a logging road and not finding one piece of equipment — no cables, no

oil, no nothing. It was all cleaned up.

The mentality has changed. Industry gets it. They understand there are environmental

conditions that they have to abide by, but that's even backed up by First Nations

saying that the environmental conditions have to be even higher than what the B.C.

government is proposing.

Forget about Canada. They're too far removed. These are issues on the ground, and

that's what B.C. was trying to tackle. That's the partnership that I saw from 2004

to 2017 — a cooperative partnership, and it worked. I truly believe that Aboriginal

rights and title case law could fill in the gaps that legislation was failing at.

Somehow we're going to meet together, and we'll all have a robust environmental management

plan.

At the same time, though, we quickly found out that if we pushed too hard on any issue,

including environmental management, we could chase investment away, and it happened.

So we had to find that balance. What was enough for them to stay and invest but realize

they had to put up a bond for decommissioning? That's what we called it — decommissioning.

It wasn't just there that we realized that we had to be fair to these companies because

we wanted their investment. That took work, and it was hard work. So for the people

that said in this House that we should actually just follow the Osoyoos rule and go

into investments for properties or real estate or tourism, you should come to us and

see how we wrote the book on environmental management and LNG development.

We did a good job. I'm quite proud of it. Was it perfect? No. Nothing's perfect. But

it did achieve everything that all the parties wanted to see achieved. Industry got

their project approved. Government got their revenues. And the First Nations from

Prince George to Kitimat got jobs and contracts and a way out from the miserable lifestyle

under the Indian Act. It was a win-win-win. In this case, I don't include Canada,

because the environmental assessment at that time was working.

We didn't pore over the Environmental Assessment Act and analyze it with lawyers.

We just sat down with government, sat down with industry and said: "Look, we've got

to make this a workable situation for all the parties."

[4:50 p.m.]

We also understood that some of the private land that we were actually talking about

had to have environmental standards attached to it. But we didn't want to write that

book ourselves on private land that we owned as a band. So we looked to the provincial

government.

We found standards that were workable. In fact, we also saw standards that were fair

to industry, to say: "We will not arbitrarily give you a lease price based on nothing

or a tax price. We'll actually go to the B.C. Assessment Authority."

Industry liked it. They liked the certainty. They liked the consistency in terms of

our rules that actually mirrored the B.C. government's. In the case of our private

land, we just turned it over to the provincial government. We'll go with their tax

scheme. We'll go with their environmental scheme.

In terms of environmental management, I don't know if this House is aware, but did

you know that Kitimat is historic for implementing one of the only commercial industrial

First Nations industrial development agreements?

By the sound of it, nobody knows.

Interjection

E. Ross: Did you know, Mr. Speaker? Ah, okay.

Did you know that?

Interjection.

E. Ross: Okay. Good, good.

First Nations commercial industrial development agreement. What it was: B.C. is not

welcome on Indian Act lands. That's federal jurisdiction. Not welcome. But in this

case here, we knew that we needed a regulator on our reserve lands, somebody that

was right there on the spot, not somebody in Ottawa.

Ottawa is in charge of the Indian Act reserve lands. We couldn't have somebody from

Ottawa dictating environmental issues or lease issues or tax issues. We couldn't d