Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, February 15, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 149

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Cherry Kingsley

Hon. M. Mark

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

D. Ashton

Hon. J. Osborne

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Merrifield

M. Lee

T. Shypitka

M. Bernier

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2022

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

B. D’Eith

A. Olsen

T. Shypitka

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

CHERRY KINGSLEY

Hon. M. Mark: I stand to honour a life whose impact will last more than a

lifetime. Her life has ended too soon, but her legacy in this province,

where her roots go back through time immemorial as a daughter of the

Shuswap Nation and a mother to her son Dakota, will reverberate across

seven generations and into forever for this province and, indeed, for

sexually exploited children and youth the world over.

Why? Quite simply because against all odds, she truly changed the

world for many of those children and for all of us who grew up in care,

and on behalf of all vulnerable children and youth.

Cherry Kingsley was born in 1970. At age ten, she fled a violent

and abusive home with her small sister in tow. Three days they walked

the railway tracks until they were picked up, only to be separated and

thrown into another survivors-only world of 20 foster

placements.

Betrayed by false friends who lured her with an offer of love she

had never had, she was then sexually trafficked across this nation,

beginning at the tender age of 14, though all ages of children are

tender. And Cherry knew this. She once said: “You went to jail for

robbing people of money or property, but rob a child of their innocence,

their childhood, their lives — too often this was not seen, was not

punished.”

But the brilliant life of this fine woman brought this dark,

unseen theft of childhood out of the shadows. She was robbed. She found

her voice and told all of us — the children, the youth, the advocates,

government at all levels, the United Nations — we can make a difference.

We can turn the lights on, and she set about showing us how.

Before age 18, she was a moving force behind the establishment of

the Youth in Care Network. By her early 20s, she planned and chaired

international conferences like the 1994 International Year of the Family

Conference, Stronger Children-Stronger Families and, two years later,

the international conference for sexually exploited youth, Out of the

Shadows, right here in Victoria.

If anyone knew Cherry Kingsley, they will be touched by her

courage — her courage to give a voice for sexually exploited and

trafficked youth. Her and I went across the country in my early 20s and

talked to those youth.

[1:35 p.m.]

She was a voice at the United Nations world congresses and set the

bar for gatherings. She listened to the children and youth because they

were the experts. She changed the language. They’re not child

prostitutes, hon. Speaker; they’re only sexually exploited children and

youth.

She engaged the hearts and minds of academics, elected officials,

civil servants, child and youth care workers, social workers, teachers,

police — the list is long. She moved them to give space for the voices

of sexually exploited children and youth.

To change legislation, policy and practice, a documentary about

her life, Recognizing the Person , has become a must-see in

academic programs as a powerful teaching tool. She was a powerful

teacher.

In 2000, she was given a Governor General’s award for her work.

She embodied, in the truest sense of the word, courage. The first

meaning of “courage,” cor , meant from the heart, a

measure of your heartfelt participation in life. Her extraordinary

courage was a measure of her heartfelt participation in creating real

and lasting change for the children and youth being robbed.

Her passing from COVID in Nanaimo, November 2021, at the age of 52

was a loss for us all. She was living in a homeless shelter. Life never

got easy for her. But I knew this woman well.

I know she wants all of us, each one of us, to remember her for

what she accomplished. She would want us to continue to resonate the

voice she gave to her experience, which was, in the words of poet David

Whyte, “an exhaustive extraction of internal resources.” She would want

us all to take the opportunity to be the change she wanted to

see.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for allowing me to pay tribute to our

dear friend Cherry Kingsley.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND

VALIDATING (N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s get this underway. We’re here on

Bill 2, and we are on clause 2.

On clause 2, I see my friend from Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m glad to see you.

Just before we start, I’d like to thank the Minister of Tourism,

Arts, Culture and Sport. That heartfelt dissertation about a good friend

that’s been lost makes a big difference in this place. It really strikes

home why we’re here and the differences that we can make. Thank you very

much for that.

My last comment is to the minister. Look out, Minister. The staff

gave me an eyeglass cleaner, so now I can read my notes. You’re in

trouble now.

I would ask the minister…. Right before lunch, we were talking

about actions of good and bad faith. So how would the minister define an

action or a decision taken in bad faith in

section 2?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne:

Section 58(3) is a common provision found in B.C. laws. Its

function is to limit the application of the validation of actions in

such a way that those actions are valid so long as they are taken or

done in good faith. Ultimately, it would be up to the courts to

determine whether an action or decision taken or omitted was in bad

faith.

D. Ashton: It’s my understanding that the court, not the ministry, would give

a ruling on “in bad faith”?

Hon. J. Osborne: Ultimately, if it was challenged in courts, it would be up to the

court to determine that, yes.

D. Ashton: Challenged in court. But I would hope the ministry would have some

interaction before court, that it wouldn’t go to court and the

opportunity…. Again, we’re dealing with an extraordinary circumstance,

with a reduced council and an expedient timeline, trying to get people

back in their homes. So if there were some challenges that came up, if

the minister could just confirm that she and her ministry staff would be

dealing with it, rather than having to wait for a court

decision.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. It bears repeating again that part of the application of this

clause…. In having the village of Lytton approach the province to ask

for a particular exemption, the Municipal Affairs staff, working with

the village staff, would make a determination of whether to recommend to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to use the regulation-making

authorities that it has.

If it is not recommended by staff, it won’t come forward to the

Lieutenant-Governor. But ultimately, if an application is made to the

courts, it is there that it will be decided what bad faith

is.

D. Ashton: Could the minister or her staff give a situational example of

No.1, just for clarity for myself, of a bad-faith incident and how that

decision is handled?

Hon. J. Osborne: The intention of this provision is to validate an action that has

been taken under a lost bylaw, so it’s limited to lost bylaws and

actions taken in good faith only. It can only be used if brought into

force by a regulation, and there are a series of checks and balances

that I have been describing in previous answers to questions given that

must work between, again, Municipal Affairs staff and the Lytton staff

before a recommendation is even brought to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to enact a regulation to allow this

provision to be used.

[1:50 p.m.]

I can’t speculate on a hypothetical circumstance that might take

place for Lytton, but I can assure the member and the House, of course,

that this is a common provision found in B.C. laws, and that is why it

is here.

D. Ashton: MEVA, to me, is…. Time is of the essence. We’re dealing with a

whole bunch of really unfortunate issues in Lytton and other places that

MEVA has been utilized. Is, or will there be, ministry staff there to

help Lytton staff and those who are working hard to try and get the

community back on its feet, for a checkpoint or a check in lieu, as this

proceeds? And/or to ensure, before it goes to council for a decision,

which I’m sure council is going to have to readopt on it….

Are there checks and balances through the ministry to ensure that

maybe a decision in bad faith does not occur? Maybe that would stop the

possibility of an extended tenure of having to go to the courts to

challenge it. I guess my question, directly, is: are ministry staff

there before, during and after any decision that has been made at

Lytton’s council?

Hon. J. Osborne: In short, yes. Municipal Affairs staff are working closely with

the Lytton mayor and council and staff. I do want to add the proviso

that they do provide policy advice, but not legal advice.

D. Ashton: Just a question, again, to the minister. Lytton is working with a

reduced council at this point in time. Two members is my understanding —

so a mayor and two council members. As we all know, smaller councils are

challenging at the best of times trying to get a consensus built up, and

a non-consensus where there is a bit of questionability on things can

cause a bit of a stalemate.

With that reduced council…. I don’t want to suggest something out

of the ordinary, but is there more attention being paid to help that

reduced council at this time? When would the by-election be called to

hopefully fill the additional positions so that the people of Merritt

will be able to have a full council and be able to let council weigh

those important decisions that are going to be taking place with not

only MEVA, but also in the general reconstruction of the town of

Merritt?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, it is correct that Lytton currently has a reduced council

with one mayor and two councillors. Of course, they still meet the

requirements for quorum and can constitute council meetings and pass

decisions.

[1:55 p.m.]

Because of the circumstances that Lytton is facing, the staff at

Municipal Affairs are providing extra support to the municipality. A

chief election officer has been appointed, and an election is scheduled

for April 30 to fill the two vacancies.

D. Ashton: No further questions on

section 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

D. Ashton: Could the minister and staff just walk the House and the gallery

through this section, please?

Hon. J. Osborne: This

section adds regulation-making authorities for regulations

that are contemplated by the new division to assist council of the

village of Lytton in repealing as well as replacing the bylaws that were

lost or partially lost. Specifically, these authorities allow the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to waive, modify or replace the

legislated requirements that would normally need to be met by the

council when adopting a bylaw.

These authorities will assist the village of Lytton in repealing

as well as replacing any of the lost or partially lost bylaws when the

unknown content of the specified bylaw makes it challenging to meet

existing legislative requirements for bylaw adoption. These authorities

allow for exceptions and modifications to be made by regulation to

legislated requirements for a specific bylaw, as contemplated in

section

57, and these regulations may be made retroactive to June 30,

D. Ashton: Public input is incredibly important, especially when you’re

rebuilding a town or especially when you’re rebuilding your own home. I

know that there has been discussion about what Lytton may or may not

look like in the future. How is the public going to be ensured

that…?

What I heard from the minister, under

section 3, is that there is

an opportunity to reduce time — I’m assuming the time frames that she

was speaking of — and reduce public input to get lost or partially lost

bylaws back in place. How do we ensure that the public is going to have

some form of input into those, which will be incredibly important for

their rebuilding?

Hon. J. Osborne: As I mentioned before, any requests from the Lytton council to use

the regulation-making authority will be considered on a case-by-case

basis. This includes careful consideration that would be given to public

engagement and consultation with First Nations.

These regulation-making authorities also allow the province to

place terms or conditions on any waived or modified requirements. Again,

these amendments are intended to provide the village with flexibility to

respond to the challenges that they are facing because of this

unprecedented situation.

D. Ashton: The minister mentioned First Nations, and I understand the

consultation. But will First Nations be able to have input into the

ongoing and forthcoming operation of the city of Lytton and their

regulatory bylaws?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: All residents of Lytton or people living in the Lytton area have

the opportunity to comment and provide input to council on the creation

of new bylaws at open public council meetings. But again, if this

regulation-making authority was used on a case-by-case basis, the

province would consider this and may — has the opportunity to — place

conditions on any modified or waived requirements that could include

consultation with First Nations.

D. Ashton: To the minister, who would pay for that, then — that consultation

during this process? Is it the responsibility of the citizens of Lytton

and their council to go out for each and every regulation, or is this

something that the ministry, your ministry, and the Indigenous

relationship ministry would be stepping forward to help Lytton

with?

Hon. J. Osborne: Once again, this would be considered on a case-by-case basis. In

the event that the province does place a term or condition on the

village of Lytton for First Nations consultation, then it would be the

responsibility of the village to undertake that, but of course, the

province would be there to provide support and guidance through

that.

D. Ashton: Responsibility is a big word for…. I know Lytton has no money. I

know they’re hardly functioning as it is right now.

I guess more of a statement than a question. I would just hope

that the various ministries are there to ensure that consultation. You

heard what my peers have said on this side about consultation through

UNDRIP. Coming from municipal government, I know that we would always do

our best to ensure that First Nations surrounding Penticton and those

surrounding and encompassing part of the regional district were notified

of it, but that was a long time ago. Now it’s the consultation bit that

comes forward, and with consultation is time and money.

Again, I would just ask: is the ministry going to be there, or

various ministries — with the minister’s best knowledge and staff’s best

knowledge — to help accommodate this consultative process?

Hon. J. Osborne: Certainly if this term or condition was applied, the province

would be there to support the village of Lytton. Indeed, we did just

provide over $8 million of funding specifically for operations,

governance and to assist the village with lost revenue and greater

expenses that they’ve experienced in the last few months.

D. Ashton: Have any regulations been drafted as of yet in Lytton? Maybe just

to qualify that: and/or replaced partially or in their

entirety?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The answer is no. The regulation-making authorities are only going

to be used when needed, on a case-by-case basis, where council requires

that greater flexibility to respond to the challenges that they’re

facing. If a regulation is developed to shorten the validation period in

Bill 2, which we spoke of earlier today, this would occur once and only

when all the lost bylaws have been repealed.

D. Ashton: So would the people of Lytton be consulted when any of these

regulations are coming forward? How would they be handled? Again, that

consultation time frame. And also to add and maybe combine two questions

at once: would that information also be going out to First Nations

present in the surrounding area of Merritt?

Hon. J. Osborne: Should the Lytton council decide to approach the province with a

request to use the regulation-making authority, council would adopt a

resolution in an open public meeting. So this would form part of their

agenda. Notice would go out to the public. Public would have the

opportunity to comment just as they would on any other matter on the

council agenda.

M. Lee: Well, thank you to the member for Penticton for just inviting me

to enter this committee process again.

To further discuss this point, I again would draw the attention of

the minister to

article 19 of DRIPA, which we canvassed earlier in a

different way, relating to consultation. I appreciate that the minister

is conveying that this would be a step-by-step, case-by-case basis, but

that’s not what free, prior, informed consent calls for. Free, prior,

informed consent calls for an earlier conversation, collaboration and

consideration. It certainly doesn’t call for just notification, which is

the point I made before.

It sounds to me that the minister is acknowledging that there may

well be a need for consultation relating to an administrative measure

that might affect the local First Nation. If that’s the case, how is the

free, prior, informed consent requirement out of

article 19 being met by

what she just described?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, this legislation is extremely narrow in scope and pertains

to the legal authority in providing certainty to the village of Lytton

to re-establish what it lost.

On the regulation-making authority defined in clause 3, if, on a

case-by-case basis, it was determined it was needed, it could become a

term or condition. But to be clear, we do not currently have any

requests.

D. Ashton: Just a quick question on 3. In 59, it says that this subsection

sets out the condition that, under subsection (2), a regulation “may be

different for different bylaws or classes of bylaws.”

Could you explain quickly, yourself or staff, why a regulation may

be different for different bylaws? I thought it was an umbrella, but if

there is a pick and choose on this, I’m just curious as to the

effect.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. This is a standard differentiation

power that’s found across B.C. laws. Different bylaws may have different

legislated requirements. This provides the flexibility so that, again on

a case-by-case basis, the regulation, if used, can be crafted

correctly.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister. I appreciate that. What would be a

situation in which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would make a

regulation or regulations?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Okay, so a specific example. This is great, because it gets

technical. There is a type of bylaw that a municipality can pass: a

highway or road closure bylaw.

In the case of a municipality repealing a road closure bylaw, it

must provide public notice. In the case of a municipality creating a

road closure bylaw, it must also provide public notice. The public

notice period takes some time. In the case of Lytton, if they have lost

a road closure bylaw, in order to repeal and replace, we could, by

regulation, modify the requirements so that they only have to provide

public notice once, which would shorten the period of time for them to

accommodate this or to achieve this.

D. Ashton: The minister stole my thunder on my last question, about a

description of a regulation that might be replaced, so we killed two

birds with one stone.

Just in closing, very quickly, I would just like to say thank you

to yourself and your peers for facilitating what I think was a very good

discussion about the future of Lytton and how the government is going to

provide administrative opportunities and, in numerous ways, help

re-establish a community that really isn’t a community right now because

many of its citizens aren’t there. Not by choice. They want to be

home.

I would just ask that not only the minister but her peers in

government do absolutely everything possible to ensure the expediency of

getting those people back into their homes. It’s going to take a broad

brush.

[2:20 p.m.]

We talk about a ministry that I have a huge amount of respect for,

coming from local government. I know how hard they all work and how

accommodating they are to the naivety of some new mayors, some older

mayors and some people on regional districts and that, but they’re

always there. What it’s going to take is a huge, concerted effort. These

people want to be home quicker than later, so let’s all work together in

this House.

I would like to thank the member for Vancouver-Langara and the

member for Skeena for their questions. I think those questions were

incredibly important. Maybe they varied a little tiny bit from the

direct part, but it gave some thought to a process that’s probably just

wider than MEVA, because there are so many questions that are out

there.

In closing, again, I would like to thank the ministerial staff. I

would really like to thank the minister. I look forward to working with

her, not only for Lytton — let’s get Lytton underneath our bootstraps,

first of all, and get it up and running — but also the rest of the

province.

Finally, between when we adjourned for lunch and then came back, I

had a quick email. It was about the fire. This gentleman just asked….

It’s actually a family. They said: “Why is Lytton being considered

different than other fires?” They talked about the White Rock fire that

burned 100 homes, after Lytton, and they’re already cleaning up their

properties. Even as the embers were cooling, they were in there cleaning

it up.

The Elephant Hill fire in 2017, the 100 Mile House fire, the

Williams Lake and the Loon Lake fires, the properties that were lost in

the early ’90s in Kelowna — none of them were declared toxic and fenced

off for the residents, for eight months now, without even cleanup being

offered in the time frame.

Lytton has been promised, by government, to be the eye of the

future of municipalities and a village of the future. Lytton wants to

get rebuilt. Let’s do whatever we can to help these people get rebuilt

and make sure that a vision that maybe many have about the future of

what communities are going to look like doesn’t interfere with getting

people back in their houses.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Thank you to the minister and

staff. I look forward to ongoing opportunities to make improvements for

all the citizens of British Columbia.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: Just before making this motion, I want to thank the critic for

Municipal Affairs and my colleagues across government and on the other

side of the House, in both parties, for all the work that has been done

in this committee stage.

I do want to comment that all of this work requires compassion,

determination, persistence and a tremendous amount of patience as we

move through this together. We’re overcoming the obstacles that we’re

encountering along the way. I do want the people of Lytton to know that

our entire government — and, as the member for Penticton has said,

indeed this entire House — is deeply committed to their recovery and

continuing to do everything possible as we work together to rebuild and

restore their community.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act,

2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 3, Protected Areas of

British Columbia Act, 2022, and I call for a short recess while we

wait for the minister and his entourage to arrive.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for a few minutes.

The House recessed at 2:27 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; R. Leonard in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I am calling the committee back to order. We are on Bill 3,

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: We are ready.

Interjections.

R. Merrifield: That was really good. I liked the intro. It was quick. It was

snappy. It definitely kept me on my feet.

[2:40 p.m.]

As this is my very first bill, I’m sure the minister is going to

find it super easy but a very energetic process. Probably the most

exciting boundary amendment of the protection areas that we’ve ever had,

largely because I’m very passionate about the environment. It’s

something that I feel very privileged to be a part of and to ask the

questions to further my understanding, to further British Columbians’

understanding, but also to make sure that we’ve protected everything

that we possibly can of B.C.’s most celebrated aspects of Mother Earth,

our parks.

While I understand that most of these amendments are fairly

routine in nature, and the decisions are pretty basic, I believe that

the discussion that we’re about to have is very necessary. So I thank

the Chair for getting started.

My first question is this. Why are these parks chosen for these

amendments at this time, rather than others? I know that in the briefing

that we received, some of these parks have been…. Since 2019, purchases

were made. In 2020, purchases were made.

I’m just asking: what is the process by which these come to

fruition and come to be in this particular amendment bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: Perhaps I could ask the member to just clarify. Is the member

asking how we prioritize lands to purchase for addition to parks or how

we prioritize what to bring forward in legislation?

R. Merrifield: It’s actually how the timing is established. After we make the

purchase — because some of these purchases were made in 2019 and in 2020

— what is the process which each of these land parcels goes through to

then come to this House?

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

The first thing that happens after we purchase private land and

are considering an addition to a park is that we need to prepare a

boundary description, which is usually the official plan, as I noted in

my second reading remarks yesterday. But by far the most important piece

is to ensure that we both consult and collaborate with Indigenous

nations.

This will not be an exhaustive description of the process, but in

brief, they will begin with an initial engagement through a meeting,

phone call or letter to provide information about the proposal to the

potentially affected nations. There’s a notification to Indigenous

nations, in the case of private land, immediately following acquisition.

That information includes maps, background information and an open

opportunity for dialogue around the proposal.

[2:45 p.m.]

The dialogue could include sharing of information between the

parties on possible future opportunities for increased Indigenous nation

engagement and collaboration with B.C. Parks in the management of the

lands.

In some cases, the nation will provide their support directly,

following an initial response letter. It may be virtually — not

immediate but fairly close, in which case we can proceed to add it to

that year’s protected areas amendment act bill.

In some cases, we’ve had amendments that have included over two

years of consultation. That’s to give time to discuss a range of

questions and concerns that the nations may have, to collaborate on site

visits, to build relationships and, frankly, for the ministry to learn

more about Indigenous knowledge, values and interests in the area that

will help inform the decision about adding it to the park and how it

will be managed and to do it in a way that aligns with and is agreed to

by the nations that are affected.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that helpful overview in terms of

what is presented here under this bill, in terms of the ten additions

and a few other deletions. Perhaps I could just ask the question this

way: in terms of what is listed in this bill, could the minister just

identify which of these protected areas are areas that are subject to an

existing Aboriginal right — land right or title right? Which of these

protected areas has the government entered into consultation

on?

Hon. G. Heyman: In general answer to the initial question by the member for

Vancouver-Langara, every single one of these additions would be subject

to asserted Indigenous rights. We consult on the same basis and in depth

with all nations that have an asserted Indigenous right.

I’m going to give an example of this in the case of Gladstone

Park, which will provide a significant amount of detail. Then if the

member would like me to do it for every single addition, I will — or if

the member has specific additions that he would like to question. But I

think the initial example at least will serve to indicate to the members

and the public some of the depth.

[2:50 p.m.]

Let’s start with the addition to Gladstone Park. The nations that

had interests were the Lower Similkameen Indian Band, the Penticton

Indian Band, the Upper Nicola Indian Band, the Osoyoos Indian Band, the

Okanagan Indian Band, the Okanagan Nation Alliance, the Ktunaxa Nation

Council and the Simpcw. They were all consulted.

Consultation with the Osoyoos Indian Band took place from April

2019 to July 2019, a little over two years. The Osoyoos Indian Band

staff initially raised concerns and did not support the addition, which

is clearly why we had a lengthy consultation with them.

Following significant efforts by both parties to understand the

concerns and explore future collaboration opportunities, which included

a site visit to the lake in 2020 and June of 2021 as well, B.C. Parks

received a letter from Chief Clarence Louie, of the Osoyoos Indian Band,

providing their support for the proposed addition.

Given the time frame over which consultation was conducted, an

update was sent in July 2021 to all of the individual bands and

nation-level entities indicating that the project was moving ahead, and

no further concerns were raised from this follow-up. As I mentioned, the

concerns…. We took a significant amount of time and effort to see if we

could resolve the concerns that were raised by the Osoyoos Indian band

collaboratively and productively.

I’ll take my seat for a moment. If the member would like me to go

through the entire list, I will. Or if the member wants to choose

particular additions and question me on those, I will do that as

well.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister, and thank you for

using Gladstone Park as an example. Obviously, there’s a lot of detail

that the minister could share with us. I know that the member for

Kelowna-Mission had the benefit of a briefing with the minister and

staff, and there was one that was noted for example.

If we can just select that one as another example here, Naikoon

Park. I understand there was some significant consultation done with the

Haida First Nation on that one. Perhaps the minister could just outline

that one as well.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. This one is simpler in

many regards because, as the member will know, the only nation affected

in Haida Gwaii is the Haida. The purchase occurred in 2020. On December

15, 2020, the area supervisor for B.C. Parks in the area sent a letter

to the Haida with information and to see if there was support for the

proposed addition of the park.

There was a meeting by phone in March 2021, approximately three

months later, with the counsel of the Haida Nation vice-president,

Trevor Russ, to discuss the proposed addition. At that point, Trevor

Russ indicated that a letter of support would be provided to the

ministry. That letter was provided on April 28, 2021, stating support

for the proposed addition of the two former lots to Naikoon

Park.

M. Lee: Just on this particular park, it’s my understanding that there

were some additional activities where they’re beyond just the

consultation, which sounded like more of a notification and letter of

support process. Was there some sort of planning exercise or activity

done, as well, with the Haida First Nation?

Hon. G. Heyman: With respect to this amendment, there was no additional detailed

discussion around issues with the Haida. But there are, for Naikoon Park

as a whole, ongoing discussions on operational issues all the time.

Operational issues that come up are discussed fully with the Haida. As

part of a joint solutions project and as part of an agreement with the

Haida and the B.C. government called the Changing Tide agreement, one of

the items for discussion that we are engaged in is the whole question of

governance and management of the entirety of Naikoon Park.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just in terms of when I look at the neighbouring ecological

reserves and conservancies around Naikoon Park, that would suggest that

there is an ongoing overall input and involvement with the Haida for the

entire area. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is correct. All of the conservancies and ecological

reserves surrounding Nai­koon Park are part of the ongoing

discussions with the Haida around ultimate governance

arrangements.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. Obviously, I am coming at this as the critic

for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, so I appreciate the time

that the member for Kelowna-Mission has provided here.

Just to continue to look through it from that lens, the other

protected areas that are listed to Bill 3…. Are there similar plans with

other First Nations that are involved for the other protected areas,

like this particular area with Naikoon Park and the Haida?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As I mentioned with respect to Gladstone and our consultation with

the Osoyoos Indian Band, we committed to ongoing discussions regarding

management and collaboration with the Indigenous nation. We routinely

consult with nations with interests in every park, not just the ones

listed in this bill, with respect to, for example, park use permits, as

well as regular ongoing operational matters.

We are certainly open when any nation raises the desire to engage

directly with us on either a specific operational issue or a management

issue of a park or to discuss the opportunities for collaborative

management or participation in management or co-management. We are

certainly open to those discussions and generally enter into

them.

I don’t have knowledge of any specific formal process with regard

to the other parks listed in the bill, although those may be topics that

have been raised by nations as part of a broader

government-to-government agreement or process that would be overseen by

the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

I can’t give a more detailed answer to that question now, but I’m

certainly prepared, if the member wants to check back with Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation, and provide any further detail that’s

available.

M. Lee: This does touch on one point that I was addressing in my second

reading speech on this bill, which is what the minister just referred

to. In terms of co-development and co-management and stewardship of

Environment lands and resources, I note with interest that is what is

set out in the draft action plan on the implementation of UNDRIP, 2.7. I

think that does give me a general understanding as to the minister’s

current approach, let’s say, in terms of where that stands.

In terms of opportunities to look at these protected areas as part

of the larger piece of land management, environmental stewardship,

that’s the reason why I’m particularly interested in how these protected

areas are being dealt with at this juncture and the understanding as to

how that links up with other opportunities to work with First Nations,

nation-to-nation, as the minister just indicated, if not in any other

manner.

Why don’t I just come back to another particular protected area.

That’s the Okanagan Mountain Park, and there clearly are members on this

side of the House who have great familiarity with that region — the

members for Kelowna West, Kelowna-Mission, Kelowna–Lake Country and

Penticton.

Could I just ask the minister to comment on that particular

addition of the 23 hectares and what level of consultation and

involvement there has been with local First Nations?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I’ll answer the specific question. With respect to

Okanagan Park, the following nations and the following Indigenous

communities were consulted: the Lower Similkameen Indian Band, Nooaitch

Indian Band, Okanagan Indian Band, Penticton Indian Band, Upper Nicola

Indian Band, Westbank First Nation and the Okanagan Nation

Alliance.

The Penticton Indian Band deferred to the Westbank First Nation,

and the Westbank First Nation provided support for the park additions.

No other responses were received. I do have a record of the dates and

times of outreach and the response, or lack of response, from different

communities, which I could paraphrase or read for the member, but I

think the

summary is pretty much what I read. Everyone was contacted;

one deferred. The nation to which they deferred had no

issues.

I also want to address the point the member raised at the start of

his comments, which was an excellent one, because there are lots of

opportunities with respect to conservancies and protected areas that

some nations are identifying, that others identify and that nations come

to support. There are some good examples of work we’re doing outside of

these amendments, and I just want to highlight a couple of

them.

We recently established a couple of new conservancies that were

recommended by Indigenous nations for protection. One is the Tsaa Nuna

conservancy, which is 5,300 hectares, established at the request of the

Halfway River First Nation. More recently, we established the Tenh

D z etle Conservancy. We actually more recently adopted the

Tahltan name Tenh D z etle for an area that we added as a

conservancy, at their request and urging, that was formerly known as

Mount Edziza Conservancy.

These recommendations generally come to us through

government-to-government planning processes where we engage in a broad

range of discussions with nations about reconciliation issues they

raise, including, for many if not all, an interest in conservation — and

certainly, I would say, for all — a voice in how land and waters are

treated and managed in their territories in which they have

interest.

[3:15 p.m.]

I was quite pleased with these two conservancies that were

established recently. I look forward to other opportunities to

responding positively to protecting important cultural, social,

historical and ecosystem values for nations with whom we’re

engaged.

The Chair: Members, just note that this bill is separated. The different

parks are in different clauses. If you have questions that are of a

larger scope that happen to cover the other ones, that’s fine. But

if you could reserve specific questions around the specific parks

relative to their specific clause.

M. Lee: I’m happy to have more general questions, Madam Chair, in terms of

the overall approach to Indigenous relations and reconciliation through

these protected areas. It may well be that, of course, as the lead

critic, the member for Kelowna-Mission will have more specific questions

as follow-ons for each of the individual protected areas.

Let me say that in terms of the process of consultation and

notification — just using the three examples that the minister has

shared with the House to date — it sounds like, at least in the nature

of Naikoon Park and Okanagan Mountain Park, there was notification to

each of the Indigenous communities and First Nations involved, as

understood by the government and the Crown.

Just in terms of the scale, then, in terms of looking at those

protected areas that have, let’s say, a lower strength of claim and,

potentially, a less serious negative impact or effect on a particular

identified right of Indigenous peoples’ land and title right to the area

that is in question, versus the higher level, at the other end of the

spectrum in terms of consultation — which would suggest more

consultation involvement — I think that in terms of Gladstone Park, it

sounded like, given the nature of it and the number of First Nations

involved, it was a fairly involved consultation process.

I’d ask: in terms of the usual range, in terms of the lower end,

let’s say, of the level of consultations versus the higher end, could

the minister give a sense to the House as to which protected areas fell

in the lower end — i.e., just the notification approach — or something

that was more involved, by way of consultation, towards something that

had a stronger claim, or a more serious negative effect impacting

particular title rights, in that area?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We initiate engagement with all nations that express an interest

in a particular territory, and we don’t scale our initial engagement

with them based on any evaluation of strength of claim. If a nation

doesn’t respond to us or indicates that they’re fine, that’s the extent

of it. Or if they defer to another nation — they have done

that.

If a nation, on the other hand, has questions or wants to engage

with us, we do that. We do that for two reasons: because we think that

B.C. Parks has a lot to learn from what nations can tell us about the

history of traditional use of that area — stories, myths, social,

cultural and spiritual significance of an area, of which we may be

completely unaware. Of course, we understand that in some cases, some of

that information is treated by a nation as to be held carefully and not

shared, other than with particular people, and we respect

that.

The second reason, of course, is we want the nations’ questions to

be answered. We want the nations’ interests to be reflected and,

ultimately, we want the nations to be fully in support. There are a

number of reasons for that.

Reconciliation and recognition of rights and interests is

obviously one of them. But we think that whenever we can work together

and move toward collaboration, even if it’s on operational issues or

change of use issues right up the spectrum to, ultimately, discussions

about governance or co-management…. We have the opportunity to include

the cultural record of the park, as well as the design of park

educational and interpretive materials, as well as even opportunities to

shape how a park is used for all British Columbians, to enrich ourselves

from an understanding and knowledge of the history of the place that we

are visiting.

Of course, we are also interested in ensuring that the legitimate

interests and rights and interests of Indigenous people are incorporated

in planning and changes that we make to B.C. Parks. I hope that is

helpful as an answer.

We would only get into a question of strength of claim if there

were directly oppositional views by different nations, and one of them

was expressing that their interest had greater priority because their

claim was greater. But that is, frankly, a situation that doesn’t arise

in this case very often. We don’t seek to make it an issue.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. This is actually just a question

for you, as I recognize that the bill is divided into certain clauses,

but each of the parks is not a particular clause, so some of them are

kind of conjoined. We also don’t have an intro

section of any

nature.

Some of the questions that we’ll be asking at this point might….

We’ll try and keep them as broad as possible and as applicable to all of

the different parks, but if we could be so indulged just to have some

examples from some of the individual parks, it will save us time when we

get to those, if that’s all right.

The Chair: Yes, exactly.

R. Merrifield: Perfect, thank you.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. That does lead me

into the general approach that the ministry is using, which is, I

thought, a very helpful description.

[3:25 p.m.]

Another point that I noted in my second reading speech, which I

did want to come back and ask the minister about, is when I look at the

debate at second reading from the last consideration of the very similar

bill last fall, the minister at that time referred to compliance with

any particular…. Let me just get the right quote here.

Basically, the minister was referring to the amendments that will

enable the government to continue moving forward with the ongoing

reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples, in that case, by

renaming two parks to include their place names and that it would be an

important step in implementing UNDRIP, of course. But there would be a

need, as well, to consider the compliance of this requirement in terms

of how it meets the new requirements under the declaration of the rights

of Indigenous peoples.

To the minister: in the ongoing work that is being done across

ministries and with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation on the action plan, have there been any further

requirements that the minister sees in terms of how to address the

general approach to protected areas?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for the question. I

think it’s fair to say that in all of our consultation processes in the

ministry, generally, and in B.C. Parks, consistent with principle 6 of

the ten draft principles that guide B.C.’s relationship with Indigenous

peoples, we aim to secure the consent of Indigenous nations. That’s the

guiding principle, and to that extent, we think that our consultation

process, therefore, is aligned with DRIPA.

Further to that, we know from a range of government-to-government

agreements that are reached with individual nations — sometimes with

groups of nations — guided by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation that issues related to parks and conservancies may or may

not be identified specifically by those nations as areas in which they

wish to engage or they wish to have prioritized. When we’re brought into

those discussions by MIRR, we enter into them fully and in good faith

with those nations that wish to do that.

I would also say that there is a range of things that B.C. Parks

has been doing over the years that we think are advancing reconciliation

with nations as well as consistent with DRIPA. Some of these began

before our government took office, some of them are new, and some of

them are continuations of processes that have been going on for a

while.

We, first of all, have partnered with a number of First Nations on

many projects that will advance our common interest in stewardship

management and appreciation of parks. We also have an ongoing priority

to try to better integrate Indigenous knowledge, values and interests

into parks planning and management processes as we work together. As

part of that, in our student ranger program hiring and in some of our

pandemic recovery hiring, we placed a priority on hiring Indigenous

youth that we hope will choose a career in B.C. Parks on an ongoing

basis.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We’ve completed over 150 collaborative projects with Indigenous

partners to support shared stewardship interests: interpretive signage,

collaboration with Indigenous guardians, increased cultural tourism and

other education opportunities, a number of which, but not all, have been

supported by the B.C. Parks licence plate program.

We also recently developed a visitor use management strategy with

the Lil’wat and N’Quatqua Nations and developed interpretive cultural

signage and presence at Joffre Lakes Park in support of the

strategy.

I’ve mentioned the renamings, I think, during my second reading

remarks. Other renamings are Saysutshun, formerly known as Newcastle

Island Marine Provincial Park; Sxótsaqel, which I mentioned, formerly

known as Chilliwack Lake Provincial Park; and

ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, formerly known as

John Dean Provincial Park, now known by both names. I did mention,

earlier, the new conservancies.

Finally — my final example, in any case, although there are more —

on the central coast, we’ve been working with Kitasoo/Xai’xais and

collaboratively developed a bear-viewing operational plan for part of

the Fiordland conservancy. It contains objectives for enhanced

protection of grizzly bears and cultural values, but it also captures a

significant economic interest for the Kitasoo/Xai’xais and has resulted,

among other things, in two Indigenous guardians residing in the area for

up to two months a year to implement the operational plan.

M. Lee: I appreciate the breadth of the response from the minister. It

does come back to the two areas that I just wanted to ask to get a

further response from.

[3:35 p.m.]

Again, looking at this bill in terms of protected areas of the

province and recognizing where the government is on their draft action

plan to implement DRIPA…. We talked earlier about the co-development and

collaboration, cooperation of stewardship and the environment and land

resources with Indigenous peoples and communities.

I noted, as well, in my second reading speech that when I look at

the annual report…. Of course, we expect another one coming soon, but

the last one, which was for 2020-2021, chose to have the government

focus on particular articles of the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples. This one in particular, which I cited previously,

was

article 29.1, which says: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the

conservation and protection of the environment and the productive

capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall

establish and implement assistance programs for Indigenous peoples for

such conservation and protection, without discrimination.”

And, really, now that we’re into this — 26 months after UNDRIP was

passed in this House, unanimously — the level of clarity in the work

that this government is doing to work with First Nations as to implement

the articles, the approach that the government is reporting on both is

by way of an action plan, which I cited earlier, and now specific

adherence or compliance with specific articles of UNDRIP.

I think it’s useful that the minister, in his response previously,

talked about a number of examples as to how the government is working

with First Nations to meet, in their view,

article 29.1. But I would say

that as the minister listed out all of the approaches, of course, I’m

sure that they’re under the 100 First Nations that are referred to in

the annual report. The minister may say that there are more than 100

First Nations that are actually engaged in this work, of the 203 in this

province.

But I just ask: again, recognizing the confines of this bill and

where we are in progress in implementing and providing certainty to the

implementation of UNDRIP in this province, where is the ministry

currently in terms of the other work that’s necessary to meet

article

29.1? And what other steps is the ministry taking to ensure compliance

with that article?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the best way to answer the member’s question is to say

that government engages through a variety of fora with nations on

identifying interests, identifying significant issues that form part of

reconciliation or shared prosperity or other agreements. These

discussions, when they touch on land use or conservation or resources,

typically involve a number of ministries with MIRR, Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, negotiators leading the

discussions, and we participate in them to that extent.

No such issues came up with respect to any of the amendments in

this bill, so in the context of Committee of the Whole on this bill,

there is no real answer that can be given. Further, it is not a question

that is largely well answered by this ministry in isolation.

[3:40 p.m.]

But having said that, I would invite the member to return to

revisit that issue during spending estimates, Committee of Supply, in

terms of the ministry’s overall operations.

M. Lee: I certainly will do that. I will take that opportunity.

Particularly, we are awaiting the sharing of the actual action

plan. It’s been 26 months now, so hopefully…. We understand from the

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that the action plan

is still coming. We’ll see that shortly, I’m sure. But this is the

reason why, in the midst of dealing with bills in the absence of the

action plan, we are having to address in what way is the government

actually meeting what was set out in DRIPA.

Let me just ask a few other questions, if I may. Just in terms

of…. Talking again of the 14 areas that are named here under this Bill

3, were any of these protected areas, with the work that was done with

First Nations, involving any particular economic interests by Indigenous

communities or First Nations in these protected areas?

Hon. G. Heyman: In the consultations we conducted on these amendments, no nation

raised a specific economic interest. There were, as I pointed out…. Let

me use the Osoyoos Indian Band. The discussion over two years resulted

in support for the amendment and agreement to further explore operations

for collaboration, involvement in park management, which might and could

lead to some employment opportunities for members of the nation. But

that is just something I am positing as a potential outcome.

M. Lee: Just in terms of these protected areas as well. To the extent that

any of these areas involved any private land acquisitions to further the

sites, what was the nature of any consultation that was involved with

First Nations about those private lands?

Hon. G. Heyman: This is similar, I think, to an earlier question. The answer is

that when we purchase private land we inform the nation to see if they

have concerns or interests with respect to that land. If we intend to

add it to a park, a protected area generally — which is the reason, of

course, that we would purchase it — we inform them of that intent, and

then we proceed to discuss it. Sometimes the discussion is short.

Sometimes it takes place over a period of years to ensure that we’ve

fully canvassed the interests and ultimately reflect those interests in

a consent agreement.

[3:45 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: I’d just like to piggyback or go down the same road as my

colleague here for Vancouver-Langara went down. That’s just in

consultation. It seems like there was a fairly high level of

consultation with First Nations. I can respect that.

Mine’s on a different type of claim, and that’s mineral claims and

other types of tenures that could be severed by the expanding of these

boundaries. And that’s on access to adjacent Crown lands, mineral

claims, tenures, those kind of things.

I guess the question is: what level of consultation was delivered

to stakeholders and user groups whose access to tenures, claims and

recreational opportunities may have their access severed by these

boundary changes?

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

B.C. Parks purchase private land with the intent to add it to a park,

first of all, there has been, obviously, an assessment and a

prioritization done prior, to identify areas that are both significantly

important for either ecological or recreational considerations or both.

That’s how they’re prioritized. But part of that would also be to

consider what other community or economic opportunities

exist.

When the land is purchased, an assessment is done of whether there

might be an impact potentially on economic activity or on recreational

access. Where it is reasonable to do so, which is most cases, we will

adjust park boundaries to accommodate a legitimate interest that doesn’t

defeat the purposes for which we are looking to make additions to the

park in the first place.

A good example of that is Hole-in-the-Wall Park addition where we

worked with the mineral tenure holder, who voluntarily surrendered their

tenure in order to allow that to be added to the park and without

significant potential for defeating the purposes of adding it to the

park.

We also identified that there was a forest service road that was

needed for some economic activity, and we ensured that the boundary did

not encompass that forest service road to prevent access.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for the response. So a certain amount of

diligence was put into notifying stakeholders, I’m taking it. How was

that process delivered? Was it notification? Did the ministry look at

access areas inside the expanded areas that they were going to encompass

with the new pieces of park that they were going to put in? Did they

notice the access areas and look at claims outside of adjacent

areas?

How was the process delivered to notify people that were going to

be impacted by, perhaps, these boundary changes?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Where we identify an

economic interest — for instance, a mineral tenure holder in an adjacent

area or a community interest — we will notify the community or the

company or the rights holder directly and invite discussion around any

potential impacts they see and work with them to address

them.

T. Shypitka: Does the minister have any list or any record of who is engaged

with what recreational groups, whether it’s snowmobiling clubs or

cross-country skiers or anybody like that? Is there a list of

stakeholders that the ministry engaged with that I could

have?

Hon. G. Heyman: We do have those records, but we’ll have to go and get them. If

it’s acceptable to the member, we’ll simply provide them.

T. Shypitka: I’ll pass it over to my colleague here.

R. Merrifield: How are the stakeholders identified? I know there’s a question of

who the stakeholders are. How are they identified? Are there any public

notifications that go out for groups that might not be indicated by the

ministry?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think we should start a step back. I mentioned earlier that we

have an ongoing list of areas that we’ve prioritized for purchase to

add, because they have significant recreational or ecological value, for

addition to parks should they become available at a fair price. We have

an annual budget to address that, as well as the assistance of different

outside organizations with interests — conservation organizations who

have been, more and more, coming forward to partner with us on these

things, as well as the B.C. Parks Foundation.

With private land acquisition, we will look to see what…. Sorry.

Just to back up, in the process of that prioritization, we would

certainly look at community recreational use currently versus the value

of adding them to the parks and protected area system. That would form

part of the prioritization.

In terms of the acquisition of private lands, we will identify,

based on community knowledge and discussion, where there may be an

economic interest, and then we would reach out and follow up on that. We

don’t typically give public notification when we purchase private land

and are considering adding it to a park, to invite a broad public

comment. We will have, in the prioritization process, identified current

uses and different user groups and have a sense of the community’s

relationship to that land and their interests in it.

R. Merrifield: I understood, from the conversation that was going on, the

questions that my colleague was asking on the Indigenous process of

consultation. I guess I’m moving now to the non-Indigenous process of

consultation and how that is embarked upon.

[3:55 p.m.]

What I’m hearing is that there is sort of a general look at the

property as to who might have interests and historical uses of the

property. There’s no formal public consultation or formal public notice

process.

What does the consultation process look like with the potential

stakeholders or potential affected groups on the park acquisitions that

we’re making, or amendments?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I mentioned we typically don’t consult broadly, other than

to ensure that we’ve identified impacts on economic interests in

adjacent property when we purchase private land. But to put it in

perspective, we’re talking about private land purchases. When the land

is owned privately, no one has any say in how it’s used outside of

existing environmental laws, regulations and land use

prohibitions.

When we purchase the private land, we’re purchasing it to make it

available for public use and access or, in some cases, protection of

ecological values that may limit some public use or access. If we didn’t

purchase it, a private party would, and again, it would not be available

to the public.

R. Merrifield: Are there studies done on these different properties looking for

anything like future liabilities or geological aspects or geotechnical

aspects?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is yes. When we are considering land for purchase, we

will look at any potential liabilities. For instance, I’ll use this as

an example. If there is any indication at all of a history of past use

that could create an environmental concern, we will ensure that’s

evaluated so we know what we would be in for if we purchased it or if

turning away from that particular purchase is indicated.

R. Merrifield: Now I’ll take the indulgence to actually go to the specific parks,

if we might, and start working our way through them, starting with the

Big White Mountain Ecological Reserve, one of my personal favourites.

What is the significance of moving the establishment of the Big White

Mountain Ecological Reserve from that of an OIC to

schedule A of the

act?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member is that there is no difference to how the

Big White Mountain Ecological Reserve will be managed. Although this

could also have been done by amendment to the OIC, part of the result of

changing the description of the reserve to the official plan is to be

more precise, specific and accurate, as I described in my remarks during

second reading.

It is our goal, ultimately, to move all ecological reserves into

schedule A of the act so that they are covered by the legislation and

not by OIC.

R. Merrifield: Excellent.

The original OIC from 1972 indicated that the Big White Mountain

Ecological Reserve was approximately 2,720 acres, which is equivalent to

about 1,100 hectares. The reserve being established under

schedule A is

now only 953 hectares.

In reference to the minister’s accuracy, my question is: why is

the area smaller now?

Hon. G. Heyman: There are two reasons for the difference in the size. One of them

is, which I’ve already addressed, that the official plan using GIS

mapping is more accurate. But the other reason is to correct an error.

There was a part of the Big White ski development that was included

erroneously in the boundaries when they were initially established. It

was never intended to exclude them from use as part of the ski resort,

and they’ve always been used for that. So we’re making that

correction.

R. Merrifield: I see that the removal of approximately four hectares of the 47

hectares is part of that southwest corner that the minister referenced

just now. Am I to assume that the rest of it, then, would be the GIS

mapping changes?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s correct. That’s why we are doing our best to move toward

official plans and GIS mapping, which is far more accurate than

descriptions that were used in the past.

R. Merrifield: Absolutely. Agreed.

Also, just referencing back to one of my earlier questions, which

is on the timing of when these come into being…. It was referenced in

one of the briefings that…. Sorry, in the only briefing; I shouldn’t say

one of, like there were many. In the only briefing, this was actually a

lot adjustment that dates back to 1972. What takes from 1972 to 2022 in

terms of adjusting that four-hectare section?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer really is that we have to prioritize, within the work

we do to bring amendments forward to the House, things that are of a

more urgent nature. This was not perceived to be one until such time as

Big White flagged for us that they were planning to make some changes to

their use structure, and it was a good time for us to create an official

plan and correct the error of the past.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the answer to the question.

Moving on to Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological Reserve. I understand that

this is a movement of the boundary because of a necessary access to the

water source that’s next to it or adjacent to it — and dependent upon.

Are there further provisions for other lot adjustments, if necessary,

like Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological Reserve?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is that if we became aware of similar situations that

could be addressed by a land purchase and a boundary adjustment, or even

potentially a land purchase and a new ecological reserve to protect

those kinds of important features, we would have to look at the

opportunity for purchase, assess it with our priority criteria in light

of what we can bring forward in any given year, and then move forward

with it if it corresponded with those criteria and the opportunity

arose.

R. Merrifield: Well, in this particular situation, it’s actually the province

giving back or moving the land back to the private owner. I believe that

it actually decreases the Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological Reserve by about

0.2 hectares — and understanding that it’s actually because of the

movement of the creek or the water source that this neighbouring

property is dependent upon.

I guess I’ll go back to just restate my question, which is: are

there further provisions for lot adjustments or removal of park space in

order to actually protect the, I guess, rights or water sources for

other properties that are located within reserves?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for correcting my misunderstanding of her

question. The answer to the question, as I now understand it, is yes. If

we were aware of similar circumstances, we would certainly entertain

measures to address them if they were appropriate and did not create

negative impacts on a protected area.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

[4:10 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: It’s all of the individual parks that I’m trying to go through, so

I appreciate the patience and indulgence.

Now we are on to the Blue River Black Spruce Park. Obviously, this

is a private acquisition. My questions on this one are centred around

the nature of the acquisition, as well as the nature of the consultation

with neighbouring properties. What measures are being undertaken to be

ready for these types of acquisitions when they are made

available?

Hon. G. Heyman: Generally, our staff would be keeping an eye on areas that might

be potentially inside a park boundary but are not included as part of

the park for historical reasons or private ownership reasons, or areas

adjacent that have significant potential as recreational or ecological

additions to our protected area system. Then they will keep an eye on

opportunities to make those purchases.

For instance, if there is some indication that a landowner is

interested in selling, if an owner passes away and there is some reason

to believe the heirs may be interested or, in some cases, we’re

approached by landowners who say: “I know this has been an area that is

of interest to the community. It’s next to the park, and I’d be willing

to sell if we can agree on a fair price.” In some cases, people will

offer a piece of property for sale at below market value, because they

actually want to make that contribution as part of their personal

legacy.

R. Merrifield: I hope that the minister is appreciative of the advertising that I

just allowed to take place there for all of those that own properties

and want to use them for good.

But I also wanted to just make note that I apologize, I did not

let clause 2 pass before moving on to the Blue River Black Spruce Park.

If we wanted to go back to clause 2 and then I’ll continue my

questions.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

R. Merrifield: One of the neighbouring or adjacent pieces of infrastructure is

actually the CN Rail. My question is: how was CN Rail contacted and

notified?

Hon. G. Heyman: We would not have contacted CN Rail, because the land purchased

did not include the railway right-of-way.

R. Merrifield: Understanding that it doesn’t include the right-of-way, it is

adjacent to the right-of-way. My question, again, is on the stakeholder

groups that are within the community; i.e. adjacent neighbours that

might be affected by the potential purchase. I’ll just ask for the

record: there was no notification or consultation done with CN Rail. Is

that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s correct.

R. Merrifield: Perfect. Moving on to the nature of this acquisition.

[4:15 p.m.]

Because it was a private acquisition, the minister had referenced

earlier on that there is a fair market value that’s established. My

curiosity is around how the fair market value is established. How are

British Columbians assured that they’re getting the best value for that

taxpayer dollar?

Hon. G. Heyman: We have an appraisal done of the property by an independent

third-party appraiser that’s governed by the rules and guidelines of

their association. They conduct a review of adjacent comparable

properties to help establish the fair market value, including any

differences between the property in question and those other adjacent

properties. We use that appraisal as the basis of our negotiations for

purchase.

R. Merrifield: So is the value based on fair market for park use, or is it for

highest and best use?

Hon. G. Heyman: The appraisal is conducted on the basis of, as any market value

appraisal would be, on the highest and best use.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you very much.

Moving on to the Christina Lake Park. Understanding that this is a

foreshore addition as well as…. There was a Kootenay Lake Park addition

as well. We’ll start with the Christina Lake foreshore addition. My

question is what fisheries studies were undertaken on this piece of

foreshore?

Hon. G. Heyman: No fisheries evaluation was conducted. The reason for the purchase

was to manage recreational activity on this particular sliver of

foreshore.

R. Merrifield: It’s like the minister was reading my mind. My next question is:

what types of recreational activities will be encouraged or

allowed?

Hon. G. Heyman: Christina Lake Park is essentially a beach access park, so the

recreational activities would be lounging, reading books, hanging out,

swimming. There are no boat launches, but conceivably canoes or kayaks

could be carried down.

R. Merrifield: That does make sense then, because my next question would be….

I’ll broaden it then to any foreshore extensions. Where there are

recreational activities involving motorized boats and activities, etc.,

are there wind and wave studies produced?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. There’s a history of recreational use in

the area, as the member knows. We purchased the area so we could manage

the recreational use in a manner that’s consistent with the public

interest, and under the Park Act, for example, obnoxious or dangerous

activity. But we don’t do wave and wind studies.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Obviously, just

understanding the sensitive nature of aquatic species and also just the

movement of waves, etc., are there other parks that you would do a

sensitive wind and wave study at all? Or are these never undertaken for

foreshore extensions?

Hon. G. Heyman: We wouldn’t do a wind and wave study as part of a decision to

purchase, but if we were considering an aquatic or foreshore park — for

instance, making a capital expenditure like a boat launch or a dock — we

would then likely do a wind and wave study to ensure that we were

addressing any issues that might arise.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I guess just no vigorous

swimming either in order to create those winds and waves.

Moving on to the Kootenay Lake Park, I noted that there were

individual lot lines within the park boundary and, in fact, extending

past the park boundary. I did note from the briefing that was received

that these are historical boundaries and really are not lots, per se.

But my question is such that we’re following right now Davis Creek. Is

there any appetite or why wouldn’t we extend further and just take up

those lots that are around it on the foreshore to prevent it from ever

becoming actual lots?

Hon. G. Heyman: The amendment was made to address a boundary description error and

also to address the fact that the creek had changed direction, but the

boundaries of the park are currently south of the creek. I think it’s

south. Yes, it’s south of the creek. There is no plan currently to

expand to the other side of the creek.

R. Merrifield: This might be maybe too technical in nature for the committee

here, but understanding that it is south of the creek, why was PCL A and

PCL B of block 33 omitted? Why wouldn’t that have been a natural

extension right to the highway?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not entirely sure if the member is asking why those weren’t

originally included in the park or why they weren’t included in this

amendment. The answer, in some ways, no matter what the question is, is

the same: we’d have to look at the records.

R. Merrifield: If it’s possible to get, even at a later date, just an

understanding of why those two were omitted, that would be

great.

We’ll move on now to Naikoon Park. I know that my colleague

earlier was trying to ascertain what sort of a comprehensive planning

process had been done overall. In my notes from the briefing, I actually

talked about the land use planning of this entire area. Was the ministry

involved in that land use planning exercise, or was the planning

exercise for these particular conservancies and the park?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, the answer to the member about an opportunity to

explore the reasons as to why we did or didn’t include other pieces of

property in that park is: yes, any time. In fact, to any member who

wishes information with respect to B.C. Parks or other activities of the

Ministry of Environment, just contact my office, and we’d be happy to

arrange a briefing.

With respect to this particular question, the ministry as well as

FLNRORD, as well as MIRR, as well as the Haida were all engaged in the

land use planning.

R. Merrifield: What was the planning process, then, from this area? There was the

involvement of each of the different ministries. How was that planning

process undertaken? Did it just include and encompass this area, or was

it a broader scope or scale?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not entirely certain if the member is referring to a

management plan for Naikoon Park or for the entire area, but if it’s

Naikoon Park, that plan was developed in 1999, and it was developed in

consultation with the Haida and the surrounding community

members.

R. Merrifield: As noted, I was actually referring to the land use planning, and I

was asking the question as to whether or not it was encompassing just

Naikoon Park or whether it had a larger land base that was associated

with it.

Hon. G. Heyman: There’s been a land use plan done for the entirety of Haida Gwaii

— developed by the Haida and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development — that resulted in 400,000

hectares of protected areas in Haida Gwaii.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you to the minister for the answer. My

understanding is that Naikoon Park is part of this larger land use plan

that was done and undertaken by the Haida. Was the larger land use plan

also undertaken in 1999?

Hon. G. Heyman: Chair, first of all, I just want to correct an inaccuracy in my

previous answer. I said that the land use plan was done in 1999. That

was actually the Naikoon Park management plan that was done in 1999. The

land use plan was done, I think, around 2008 and encompassed all of

Haida Gwaii as well as a broader area of the north coast. Naikoon Park

pre-existed the development of that plan and was taken into

consideration as that plan was developed.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. That makes perfect

sense. I am especially curious about the process with the Haida Nation,

as it seems like it’s resulted in some excellent work, especially when

it comes to the ease with which the consultation process was able to be

completed and to the relationship that was established, which the

minister spoke of earlier. Would this be a process that could be

embarked on with other nations as well, in terms of the land use

planning around some of these parks or conservancies?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Broadly speaking, yes. Land use planning would be undertaken by

the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development, and part of the land use planning process would be to

consider areas appropriate for protection.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to Valhalla. I think I’m saying that correctly. I’ve had

to say a lot of different names today — trying to memorize them

all.

On this one, is it correct that this was a private landowner, and

it was a donation that received a tax receipt?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. Valhalla was a property purchase, I believe, for $175,000 in

2020. The donation and the resultant tax receipt was Edge

Hills.

R. Merrifield: Thank you. I stand corrected.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to Edge Hills, Edge Hills was the one that was the gift

of land. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: That is correct.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. I just want to commend the landowner for the generous

donation and also ask about the mechanics. In our briefing, it was

indicated that it’s a federal tax donation receipt that comes. My

curiosity is just around federal versus provincial tax

credits.

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, part of the recognition with a tax receipt would be

for charitable donations. I’m not going to pretend to interpret the

Canada Revenue Agency Act or rules, but I believe that when something is

accepted as a legitimate charitable donation, there is a corresponding —

I believe, but I’m not certain — provincial credit as well.

There’s also a federal program that is federal only that’s called

the ecogift program, and that allows relief from capital gains when land

is donated.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you so much for the information.

Are there any considerations for provincial grant programs of this

nature at this time?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think that’s a question the member will have to ask the Minister

of Finance.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister. I certainly will, on your

behalf.

[4:40 p.m.]

Moving on to Gladstone Park, this has quite a few additional

aspects that were added on this particular one. Were all of these

additions purchases that were made?

Hon. G. Heyman: These additions compromise six hectares of private land that was

purchased and 16 hectares of Crown land that we’re adding.

R. Merrifield: Because my colleague for Vancouver-Langara thoroughly canvassed

all of the aspects of the Indigenous consultation that was done, I won’t

go there any further. I think that we did a good job of understanding

and ascertaining the seven different nations that were involved in that

consultative process.

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague for Peace River

South.

M. Bernier: First of all, thank you to the minister. He’ll know I want to

speak to the Hole-in-the-Wall. I just have a couple of maybe more

not-too-technical but some clarification questions that I wouldn’t mind

just getting on the record.

As the minister knows, I brought this forward here probably a

couple years ago. We had to go through a process to get it to the stage

that we are today, so I thank the minister and his staff for the work

that they’ve done on this. I think it’s about 14 hectares, if I

understood it correctly — the addition for the Hole-in-the-Wall

Park.

Just for the record, it’s my understanding — the minister, when he

gets up, can correct me if I’m wrong — that this is correcting,

basically…. I don’t know if error is the right word — maybe an oversight

— years ago, when the park was created. It was my understanding that it

was supposed to maybe encompass a little bit larger of an area than it

did, and this is a correction.

But where I really want to maybe dissect a little bit into this is

one of the reasons why it came to me to begin with. I was unaware of

this. I’m not sure if the minister was, when he took over and was

looking at this. But what I was unaware of was that the park boundary

should have or could have been moved into a little bit different

area.

The reason why it came to my attention was because of concerns

from people who utilize this area for obvious reasons, not only for the

beauty that it has. The unique geological formation that we have in this

area brings a lot of tourists to the area, a lot of back-country

campers, hikers, etc., who go to this very pristine and very exciting

area to see.

But the reason why it was brought to my attention was that about

250, 300 metres away from the Hole-in-the-Wall, the government, this

government, gave a permit to an organization, a partnership, to have a

limestone quarry. The reason, again, that I’m flagging that is because

the reason why it came to my attention is that here we have this

pristine provincial park area, and on the border of it we have D8 cats,

backhoes and excavators digging up along the side of the river, about

300 metres away.

So I guess my first question on this is: with this 14 hectares

that’s been added, is that 14 hectares going to now be encompassing the

area where there was — or is — ground disturbance taking place, right on

the edge of the park boundary? Or was the park boundary moved on a

different side of the river that’s still going to allow this quarry,

this limestone operation, to stay in operation?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I want to commend the member for his advocacy for

this addition over time. I believe that you questioned me about it in

Committee of Supply at one point, and I think that’s when I first became

aware of it, actually.

The park boundary, however, has only been adjusted to reflect the

initial error and to include the ecological feature that was meant to be

included but was not. But it has not been extended to include the

limestone quarry.

M. Bernier: Okay, I appreciate the answer — the candidness on that. I mean,

obviously, one of the concerns that’s being raised in the area is the

fact that we have this development. I mean, I’m sure that the people who

own and operate the quarry wouldn’t agree with me on that specific side.

But from a land use perspective, obviously, the people who have been

calling on this protection have been very worried about that.

I do understand the technicalities and the differences, though,

between the allowance for the permitting for this in comparison to that.

But, I guess, one of the things with the answer that the minister just

gave: have there been any access changes to the area with the park

boundary expansion? Did that encompass any of the…? It’s called the

Sukunka forest service road, I believe. I’m not sure if that’s the

government’s term or if that’s a local term, but that’s what we refer to

it as: the Sukunka forest service road.

So with the expansion of these 14 hectares, does it encompass any

of that service road? Is there going to be any cut off to access now to

the Hole-in-the-Wall on that service road, because it’s going to be,

now, within a park boundary? Or is the forest service road still outside

the park boundary aspect, which means that not only can the people

developing the quarry still have full access, but then, also, the

residents who use it, as I say, for sightseeing and camping and hiking

opportunities — will they still have full access to the area as

well?

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

Sukunka forest service road has been excluded from the park and the park

boundary adjustments, so there should be no change to access.

R. Merrifield: Why would there have been this previous omission on this park with

the jewel of the spring?

Hon. G. Heyman: That is an excellent question from the member and one to which we

have no answer that can be definitive, other than that we presume it was

simply inaccurate mapping.

R. Merrifield: How would we be able to avoid such mistakes in the

future?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a good question, and the answer is that we have much better

geographic information systems and mapping now than was available

previously, and we are using it.

R. Merrifield: Are there any environmental liabilities from the mineral lease or

extraction that’s going on right next to or adjacent to the

park?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not aware — and neither is my ministry — of any environmental

liabilities on the site. The limestone quarrying activity would be

through the Mines Act, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation, and would be permitted accordingly and have appropriate

conditions in place. I suspect that the member could get more

information from that ministry.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park, what was the

purpose of this addition? For whatever reason, I don’t seem to have the

notes on it from our briefing — but the actual purpose of these

extensions.

Hon. G. Heyman: The purpose was to increase connectivity in the park for species.

It’s a largely undeveloped addition. It builds on a previous acquisition

that also increased connectivity. There’s important habitat for mule

deer and grizzly bear as well as 450 metres of lakeshore. So it will

enable and improve protection of adjacent lake values consistent with

the Upland Park area as well as allowing appropriate — what’s the word

that I want? — movement of wildlife.

R. Merrifield: So was that lot…? It’s kind of like a skinny finger that connects

the foreshore area and the foreshore aspect of the park to this very

large park behind it. Is that the only access between those two aspects

of this park currently?

Hon. G. Heyman: Currently, it is. The rest is private land.

R. Merrifield: So this was indicated as a connecting point for wildlife or

species. Is it also a connecting point for recreation purposes or for

humans?

Hon. G. Heyman: There currently are no facilities, recreational or otherwise, to

welcome visitors to that conservancy area.

T. Shypitka: I wanted to ask a qualifying question just to follow up on the

member for Peace River South on the access to the limestone quarry. The

minister stated that the access won’t change. But now that it’s

incorporated into the park, will the land use change? Meaning it will

still be allowed for quarry trucks, rock trucks to be rolling down the

forest service road in the middle of a park. So will the land use

change? The access is still there, but will the land use

change?

Hon. G. Heyman: The existing uses of the road won’t change.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to Okanagan Mountain Park now. My Bernese mountain dogs

thank you for the….

The Chair: If I might, Member, that would be under clause 5.

R. Merrifield: Thank you.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

R. Merrifield: My Bernese mountain dogs thank you for the extension of this

park.

My question…. We’ve already canvassed the Indigenous consultation

aspects of this park, because understanding how sensitive that is in our

area, I do appreciate how much attention was given to that aspect and

that consultation process and the fact that it did take the amount of

time that it did.

[4:55 p.m.]

On the road management aspect of it, are there roads that go

through Okanagan Mountain Park?

Hon. G. Heyman: No, there are no roads that go through Okanagan Mountain

Park.

R. Merrifield: My next question is: how was the city of Kelowna consulted on

those particular lots or on the planning process of the park

acquisition?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The regional district of

Central Okanagan was contacted and did not raise any concerns. The

donation was negotiated as part of a subdivision agreement between the

property owner and the regional district of Central Okanagan.

R. Merrifield: Fantastic. Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Moving on to Omineca Park, this is a very complicated….

The Chair: If I might, Member. Sorry. Again, we need to pass clause

R. Merrifield: Is it clause 6? Oh my goodness. Okay. So no, not yet.

The Chair: Not yet. We’re still on clause 5? Okay.

Member on clause 5.

R. Merrifield: On clause 5, why is the date June 22, I believe, of ’22 for this

bill to take effect? Hold on one second. Why is this amendment coming

into force — sorry — on June 15, 2022?

Hon. G. Heyman: To the member, the reason that the provision won’t come into force

until June 15, 2022, is to provide adequate time for the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure and B.C. Parks to complete the

necessary legal transfer agreements for the old road that is being added

to the park. The land needs to be transferred from the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure before it can be included in the

park.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

R. Merrifield: On Omineca Park. It’s a very complicated park with lots of lots,

still, and people that reside within it. On this particular park, what

is the ultimate plan for it? Is it to purchase all of these individual

aspects that still remain outside of the park boundaries, or is it to

allow that to continue indefinitely?

Hon. G. Heyman: There is no plan or intent currently to add any of the remaining

private properties to the park, but if we became aware of a willing

seller, we would then do an assessment.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My last question on

clause 6 is: why is this amendment coming into force by

regulation?

[5:00 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member will know, we’re also cancelling part of the Omineca

Protected Area at the same time. That must be done by OIC, so we are

synchronizing the two actions so they take place

simultaneously.

R. Merrifield: That concludes my questions for today. I just want to thank the

Chair for all of the indulgences, as well as the minister for making

this such as easy process for the Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act, 2022.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to thank members for their questions as well as their

interest in these additions to the parks and protected areas. I move

that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2022,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I call continued Address in Reply to the Speech from the

Throne.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for a few minutes.

The House recessed from 5:04 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

B. D’Eith: Great. I rise to continue my speech to the throne. I have 18 minutes

left, so I’m very pleased to be able to continue to speak to the

throne.

Just to remind people who were listening before, I was able to thank a

lot of people early on and also talk about COVID and relief and recovery,

particularly around the arts and culture and creative industries which I’m

parliamentary secretary for.

On Monday, during our private member’s time, I had a chance to address

housing and housing affordability, so I won’t address that here. I would

encourage everybody, if they are interested, to listen to my speech on

housing and the wonderful 30-point plan we’re doing for housing

affordability in this province.

Now, when the B.C. NDP government took office in 2017, we had a

promise to improve services, make life more affordable and build an economy

that works for everyone. Instead of working for people at the top, like B.C.

Liberals, we placed people at the centre of our policies.

I’d like to start by talking about affordability. There are a lot of

things that are worth looking at that happened since we took office in 2017,

and I really think that looking forward and looking at the throne speech,

it’s very important to also look at where we’ve come from.

One of the things that happened early on was the tolls were removed

from the Golden Ears and Port Mann Bridges, and that saved people up to

$1,500 a year. MSP premiums were eliminated — biggest tax cut in B.C.

history — saving people and families up to $1,800 a year. Changes to ICBC,

with average savings of over $490 a year, and for some young people, a lot

more than that.

Child care. Some families are saving up to $19,000 a year. Just

looking at my own riding in Maple Ridge–Mission, there’s been a total child

care investment of nearly $27 million. Parents, through fee reductions and

benefits, have saved $16 million.

Of course, during the pandemic, an amazing program, the B.C. child

opportunity benefit, was launched on October 1, 2020. This is a tax-free,

monthly payment to families with children right up to the age of 18, because

we all know — I have five children — that kids don’t stop costing a lot of

money before the age of 18. I think they cost more money. At any rate,

that’s $1,600 for a family’s first child, $1,000 for a second child and $800

for each subsequent child.

Now, if you take a family with small children and you look at all of

these affordability measures, that’s $25,000 a year in savings for a family

with small children. These are affordability measures that are not only

incredible but transformative.

[5:10 p.m.]

The B.C. Liberals have elected a new leader with Kevin Falcon. Let’s

look at his track record and look at the track record of the B.C. Liberals

on this. What would their leader do?

Well, firstly, as Transportation Minister, Kevin Falcon actually was

the one who put the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, costing

families up to $1,500 a year. He was very upset about the tolls coming off,

saying it was a terrible public policy. Well, I can tell you that the folks

in my riding don’t think it’s terrible policy at all. They’re extremely

happy about that decision.

MSP premiums. When he was the Health Minister in 2010, it was

increased by 6 percent. Then, when he was the Health Minister in 2012, it

was again increased by 4 percent. We got rid of MSP premiums. They would

have kept MSP premiums and increased them.

ICBC. Again, as Finance Minister in 2012, Kevin Falcon increased car

insurance rates by 11 percent. In the same budget, he planned to raid a half

a billion dollars over three years, so ICBC, at that time, was forecast to

remit $497 million of its excess optional capital to consolidated revenue.

This is what lit the famous ICBC dumpster fire. He’s directly responsible

for that, as is the B.C. Liberal Party.

Again, the changes that we’ve made are transformative, and they’re

going to save folks a lot of money. They are saving folks a lot of money and

made a huge difference in people’s lives.

Child care. When our government was elected, there was a shortage of

child care. Child care was in crisis. Again, these were choices made by the

now leader of the B.C. Liberals when he was at the cabinet table. What we’re

going to do is, by the end of this year, reduce the average cost by 50

percent for parents of kids under six, in partnership with the federal

government.

We’re making progress in this year’s throne speech, and it outlines

further measures we’re making towards sustainable, affordable, quality,

universal child care in the province of British Columbia. Another thing

we’re doing in this throne speech is moving the ministry over to the

Ministry of Education so that K to 12 and preschool can be

aligned.

The bottom line is our government, our B.C. NDP government, has made

life more affordable for people in British Columbia in a dramatic fashion.

The B.C. Liberals, under their new leadership, would cut taxes to the rich

and take these away — $25,000 for our young family; B.C. Liberals, zero

dollars. Put that in perspective.

Making life more affordable is really important to what we’re doing,

but another part of affordability is the opposite side: our ability to make

more money. Of course, we’ve seen wages lift in this province even during

the pandemic, which is amazing.

One of the things that we’ve done is we were one of the lowest, in

terms of minimum wage, and now we’re the highest at $15.20. In this throne

speech, we’re committed to increasing that minimum wage to the rate of

inflation so that people who have been lifted out of poverty from our

changes will continue to be able to make a reasonable living.

Reconciliation is very, very fundamental to what we have done. I can

honestly say, and I’m sure members on all sides of this House can say, that

when we enacted the DRIPA legislation, bringing UNDRIP into our legislation

unanimously, was a momentous and important moment in our legislative

history. I think everyone in this chamber agrees to that.

But part of that is you can put things in writing, but you really have

to act. It’s one thing to say it. It’s another thing to do it. That’s why

this new ministry in the throne speech, which will…. It’s a ministry in

regards to the steward of our lands and resources. The idea here is to

enhance our ability to partner in land resource management and recovery with

First Nations and to achieve the objectives of economic recovery and

economic stewardship.

We’re committed to this reconciliation, but it’s only going to happen

through consultation, collaboration and comanagement of lands and resources,

as envisioned in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. So this

new ministry is very important.

[5:15 p.m.]

Another part. We talked about affordability. We also talked about

really important services and improving our services. One of those key

areas, as we’ve seen, is health care.

Now, I can say that back at home in Maple Ridge, there have been some

amazing things that have happened over the last few years.

We recently added an urgent and primary care centre, a primary care

network in cooperation with our division of family practice, and the Maple

Ridge school district, district 42, has launched the first integrated child

and youth team to support mental health for students in school. We have a

Foundry in Maple Ridge that will work in conjunction with this. It is doing

amazing work for mental health and addictions for our youth. Another

important thing was delivering an MRI to Ridge Meadows Hospital for

diagnostics, and this is already having a profound impact for people in my

community.

Another important part of our health care system is our community

action team. It’s actually 75 members in our community. I want to thank

Leslie Billinton, Kim Dumore, Shayna Guichon and everybody on the CAT team.

It’s really important. This community action initiative is a cross-section

of interest and experience that helps with mental health, addictions and

substance use. It’s very, very important to have that on-the-ground

experience with people who have lived experience, but also

professionals.

We also have First Nations and Métis involved in that, as well as

other organizations, so it’s a real wraparound, holistic, great program. I’m

very proud of what our CAT team is doing in the community.

In Mission, we also have a primary care network that was developed

with the Mission Division of Family Practice. This is a network that

utilizes a team-based approach to medicine so that we can connect people

with primary care. This includes family physicians, nurse practitioners,

registered nurses, social workers, mental health counsellors,

physiotherapists, clinical pharmacists and an Elder-in-residence. This model

is helping us to connect people to primary care, so, very, very

important.

I was so excited that after many, many years of advocacy, we have

announced that we’re going to have a CT scanner at Mission hospital. I

really wanted to thank the mayor, Paul Horn, Dr. Victoria Lee from Fraser

Health, Elizabeth Harris from Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, and Dr.

Andrew Edelson, who’s the chair of Mission All Together for Healthcare, —

MATH for short.

Incredible effort from everyone in the community, and I wanted to

thank the Ministry of Health for stepping up for this important thing. A lot

of people in my community haven’t really been able…. They have to go across

the bridge to Abbotsford, and as we know, a lot of times people can’t get

across bridges with all of the things that have been going on today, so

really important.

It’s really important to mention as well the commitment to universal

health care and how our province is leading the way to try to move us

towards a better split between the federal government and the provincial

government. Right now, we pay 80 percent, and it used to be 50-50. I’m

really proud of our efforts to work with the other provinces to try to get

the feds to step up to the plate on all of this.

I did want to speak briefly about the importance of environment and

resilience. CleanBC is well underway, legislating a strong commitment to the

carbon reduction targets, and actually legislating that we meet those

targets. We have programs for businesses and people to switch to clean

energy solutions such as EV charging networks, rebates on heat pumps, which

everyone is seeing on television these days and, of course, electric

vehicles as well.

Of course, we have to do a lot of work to fight climate change. It’s

extremely important. It’s the issue of our age. But also, as we have seen

with the heat dome and wildfires and floods, it is also important to adapt

and mitigate. We saw what happened with the devastating floods, especially

in the Fraser Valley. That’s why I wanted to thank the Minister of

Agriculture for all of the work she has done; Mayor Braun, particularly, in

Abbotsford; Mayor Horn and Mike Morden in Maple Ridge, who worked tirelessly

during the crisis we had in the fall.

[5:20 p.m.]

Also, I thank the Minister of Agriculture and federal Minister Bibeau

for the $228 million to support farmers in the area that was affected. This

is a good start, and there’s more to come. I think that it’s quite dramatic

how everyone has pulled together for these crises.

We need to make sure that when we move forward with infrastructure — I

see the Minister of Transportation in the House — it’s really important that

we build back better and that when we look at the Coquihalla or other

highways, we don’t just build to the standards that are there but really

make a concerted effort to make sure they can be resilient and withstand

what we, unfortunately, will probably encounter over the coming years in

regard to climate change in the world. In addition to that, we’re committed

to rapid transit, roads and bridges, and I’m very excited to see the

SkyTrain to Langley moving forward.

As far as an economy that works for everybody, we did see disruptions

from COVID, of course, and from wildfires and floods, but B.C. remains an

economic leader. It’s a core principle we have that people are at the centre

of our economy, and it’s really quite amazing that, in the recently

announced Labour Market Outlook forecast, there’ll be over one

million job openings in the next decade. That’s why it’s so important to see

the commitment that we have to post-secondary and trades training — in

particular, expansion of red seal certificates.

It’s going to be so important to ensure that skilled labour workers

have the skills and credentials to work in the industry. I applaud the work

of the Minister of Advanced Education and of the Minister of Labour for this

very, very important work to make sure that our workers have not only the

skills but the credentials so that they can proudly say, “Look, I’m an

expert in this field,” and they can go from different jobs to different jobs

and be able to do that.

We’ve also seen the disruptions that supply chains have made globally,

and it’s really great to see that the government’s new economic plan will

improve the movement of goods in and out of our province and look at a very

important sector — which is, of course, agriculture. It’s very important to

my neck of the woods — in Maple Ridge, Mission and around the Fraser Valley

— about agriculture and agritech.

We can see how some of the new technologies in agriculture will really

help us with these supply chains. If we can shrink the supply chains so that

we can actually be not only producing but also processing and doing other

parts to the whole process, we’ll be able to feed way more people, not only

in the Lower Mainland but all around British Columbia. I’m really excited

about the work that’s being done in agriculture and, particularly, the

agritech sector.

In closing, I just wanted to say that I’m very proud of the work that

our government has done in terms of affordability over the last four years.

We’ve worked hard to strengthen our services, like health care, like K-to-12

education, like post-secondary. We’ve built hospitals, we’re building

schools, and we’re building highways.

We’re doing that work, which not only helps us get around but also

helps build our economy. We’re making sure that our economy works for

everyone. That includes things like making sure that people who work get

paid properly with good wages. We’ve seen the wages increase. We’ve also

seen the effects of the minimum wage lifting people out of poverty over the

last few years.

Hon. Speaker, I wanted to thank you for letting me speak and finish my

speech to the throne. I very much support the words in the throne speech,

and I look forward to the next speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder to the members that we don’t make reference to who is

or is not in the House.

A. Olsen: Thank you so much for the opportunity to respond to the 2022 version

of the Speech from the Throne.

I do want to start by acknowledging the incredible team that we have

supporting my colleague from Cowichan Valley and me here in the Legislative

Assembly with the B.C. Green caucus.

[5:25 p.m.]

I want to acknowledge the incredible team that I have in my

constituency, supporting what has been a very busy year, in my constituency

office in Sidney, for Saanich North and the Islands.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that we are now a couple of years

into the COVID-19 pandemic, and I’ve had the benefit of seeing a government

operate prior to the pandemic and now through the pandemic. I think it

should be recognized that nothing that is happening in this province now is

easy, nor are the decisions that are being made easy decisions to be

made.

A lot has been asked of British Columbians over the last 24, 30

months. I’m really grateful that we are where we are right now, and my hope

is that we get some relief from COVID-19. I think, as we can see here in

British Columbia and across the province, that that relief is going to be

greatly needed as the stress of the last few years is wearing, I think, on

all of us, wearing on our democratically elected institutions and in our

constituencies near and far.

I just want to acknowledge the roles that we play here in this

democratic institution and that the divisions that exist in this House —

these sides, this side, that side — are manufactured divisions. We are here

as representatives elected by our constituents to come and represent one

part of 87 parts in this province, the government of the province. While we

have a majority government in place right now, I think it’s important to

acknowledge that we all play a very important role in the proper functioning

of this democratic institution.

For decades, the role of opposition, which is a role that I am in and

have been in since being elected, is not a position that is here just to

oppose government. The role of the opposition is to ensure that government

is accountable. We have, over a matter of hundreds of years, defined these

roles and the usefulness of these roles in order to ensure that the

government that is elected by the people to come here to Victoria to do work

on their behalf is doing it in a straightforward and an honest

way.

I take the role of being a member in the opposition very seriously.

Not here to just stand and say that everything that’s brought forward by the

executive, by the cabinet, is bad, or to unnecessarily draw lines between

the partisan interests that exist in this House, but to state very clearly

that this House functions when the role of the opposition is focused on

ensuring that we’re using the tools that the predecessors of parliaments

such as this around the Commonwealth, as they’ve evolved…. We’re using those

privileges and those tools that have been afforded us — largely fought for

and earned — effectively, and we’re not letting them sit on the

sideline.

I think something that we’ve heard an awful lot about are the rights

and freedoms that are afforded Canadians and British Columbians. I remember

having a conversation with an Elder in my community, about Indigenous

rights. I was reminded very promptly that with every right comes a

responsibility. I think it’s important that we are focused on our rights,

our responsibilities and our freedoms.

I wanted to just leave this now in this response to the debate on the

Speech from the Throne, to recognize that those responsibilities are not

only in this Legislature. They’re also a reflection of our duty to the

public, and the public to each other as neighbours, as friends and family,

people that we are and have been close with.

[5:30 p.m.]

We have a responsibility to each other. We’ve seen decades of policies

that have been very intensely focused on the rights of individuals,

separating us from the collective responsibility for each other and saying

that these…. To elevate the individual above all else and to say that we are

not benefiting from those policies and from those narratives when we face a

public health crisis like a pandemic….

Ultimately, what the focus needs to be on is the responsibility that

we have to each other. That’s what we hope the public health measures are

able to achieve: the balancing of the responsibilities that we have to each

other, living alongside one another in a peaceful and secure

society.

I just want to add, I guess, a little emphasis to the rights and

freedoms conversation that we’ve been having in our society and just, I

think, share the reminder that an Elder in my community reminded me of when

I was talking about my rights — to say that with those rights comes a very

important and not-to-be-forgotten set of responsibilities to those

rights.

The Speech from the Throne is a visionary document delivered by the

executive, delivered by our cabinet. It should be what government is going

to do, not simply a list of what government has already accomplished.

the Speech from the Throne: “The speech introduces the government’s

direction and goals, and outlines how it will work to achieve them.” It

should not be, as I think Vaughn Palmer described it, reheated

items.

Why is this distinction important? Well, it’s important because in a

representative democracy, people elect us to debate and create laws on their

behalf so that all British Columbians don’t have to fit into this chamber.

We are elected to represent roughly 50,000 constituents.

If the people and their representatives don’t know what the direction

and the goals of government are, how are the people that are elected here to

represent British Columbians going to be able to properly evaluate the

success of government if government doesn’t clearly articulate the goals and

direction that they intend to take and there is nothing there for us to hold

government accountable to? So it’s important that in these speeches from the

throne, government is very clear on what the goals and directions that they

intend to take are so that, then, those of us in opposition are able to

evaluate the success.

I guess we could just take government’s word for it, that they’re

doing everything they said they’re going to do and more. I guess we could

just take their word for it when we hear phrases like “making life more

affordable.” If there’s nothing to be able to evaluate the success or

failure of government on, if there aren’t specific goals and directions

outlined in a speech like the Speech from the Throne, then any member of

government, any member of the executive can stand up and say: “Well, we’ve

made life more affordable.” They could repeat that phrase ad nauseam and

almost leave the impression that that’s, in fact, what’s

happened.

It is important. I think that when you take a look at that specific

phrase, for example…. I think if you were to evaluate the government’s job

on a variety of fronts, you’re going to get a variety of different bits of

information, feedback in some areas: “Yes, life has become more affordable.”

And those are the ones that we often hear repeated back to us in question

period. In some cases, life has not become more affordable, and those

usually form the basis of the questions in question period.

[5:35 p.m.]

But I think that I draw attention to this because I think what’s

important is that we use these opportunities in this democratic institution

for what their purposes are, because they’re deliberate. They’re not

accidental. They didn’t just happen overnight. We didn’t just make them up

here in British Columbia. They’ve evolved over time because they are useful

protocols to ensure that government is doing what they say they’re doing and

that the members of the opposition are able to hold the government

accountable.

The next stage of this, of course, is going to be the budget. That’s

coming next week. As we take a look at the budget — basically, what that

next stage of the process here is — in the spring session of every spring

session of the B.C. Legislature is where, really, the government puts wheels

to the direction and the goals that they’ve outlined in the Speech from the

Throne.

That work then happens in the budget estimates, where we, as members

of the opposition, have an opportunity to go into detail into the

government’s fiscal plan to really be able to understand whether or not the

actions that are outlined in the budget are meeting the vision that the

government has laid out in the throne speech.

As British Columbians who may be following along in these speeches are

able to understand, each piece of work that we do in this place is a

function of that process, and each step in that process is a necessary step

in that process. I think it’s really important to recognize that when a

throne speech comes, then it’s 70-30 — 70 percent what’s happened and 30

percent what might happen. We start to run into a dysfunction in this

Legislative Assembly — a dysfunction that is not to the benefit of the

people that sent us here.

It is to the benefit of the artificial lines that are drawn, a line

that’s drawn down the middle of this Legislative Assembly, two sword lengths

separating us, a division that is necessary or had been necessary in the

past and is necessary to distinguish between the members of the opposition

and the members of the government. However, I think it’s important that we

don’t lose sight of who it is that sent us here, why they sent us here and

why it is that this place functions the way it does.

I don’t want to leave the impression that there was nothing in the

throne speech that referred to what the government’s plan for the future is.

I only want to highlight and to maybe put some bold typeface on the fact

that the vast majority of it is reheating things that have happened in the

past. I mean, getting rid of the MSP, for example, happened so long ago, so

many sessions ago, that I can hardly remember when that was. Yet somehow, it

shows up again and again as something that is going to be a future

promise.

Credit to the government. I think the government has outlined in this

Speech from the Throne the main social, environmental and economic

challenges facing our province. They have correctly identified the very

substantial challenges that we face, and I appreciate the opening of this

throne speech focusing on Indigenous relations and reconciliation, because

it is foundational to the future of this province. These relationships — the

Crown-Indigenous, Indigenous-Crown relationships — are going to be