Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 419

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Susan Maile

C. Oakes

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M212 — Name Amendment Act, 2024

K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Kelowna Rockets hockey team

R. Merrifield

Child care facilities in Campbell River schools

M. Babchuk

New KIJHL Mustangs hockey team in Williams Lake

L. Doerkson

Community engagement and civility in public discourse

R. Russell

Access to safe water and clean air

S. Furstenau

Alison O’Toole and contributions to arts and education

J. Rice

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and substance use policies

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

R. Merrifield

Status and independent oversight of conservation officer service

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Drug decriminalization program

B. Banman

Hon. J. Whiteside

Government action on antisemitism and response to issues

S. Robinson

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. Lee

Petitions

H. Yao

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 27 — Referral of Civil Forfeiture Act revision to Parliamentary Reform Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

Second Reading of Bills

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

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Police Amendment Act, 2024 (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation

Hon. J. Osborne

T. Shypitka

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2024

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. D. Coulter.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

R. Merrifield: It’s my distinct honour today to welcome representatives from the

Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of British Columbia to our

House.

As the voice for consulting engineering firms across our province, the

ACEC-BC plays a critical role in ad­vancing the business interests of

its members and fostering meaningful collaboration within the industry.

Their advocacy for fair business practices and their efforts to elevate

awareness of their industry’s significant contributions through innovative

technical expertise are commendable.

It was a pleasure to have them host us for breakfast this morning, the

B.C. United caucus, and join us in collaborative conversation and Q and

Would the House please join me in welcoming them here

today.

Hon. D. Coulter: I’d like to join with the member for Kelowna-Mission in welcoming the

ACEC of B.C. today to the Legislature. They are critical partners in moving

forward our infrastructure projects across the province.

The executives from ACEC joining us today are Suzanne Powell — she’s

from Thurber Engineering, and she’s the chair of ACEC-B.C.

Richard Bush — he’s the immediate past chair, ACEC-B.C.

Tim Stanley — he’s an immediate past chair with ACEC Canada, and he’s

also a director with the ACEC-BC board.

Caroline Andrews, who is the president and CEO of ACEC-BC.

S. Bond: I’m really delighted today to welcome a number of members of the

Medicines Access Coalition here to Victoria. A significant organization, 35

patient organizations in all, working to ensure that British Columbians have

equitable access to medications here in the province.

I would like to welcome today Charles Aruliah from the Canadian Cancer

Society.

Gail Attara from the Gastrointestinal Society.

Don Bindon from the Canadian Spondyloarthritis Association.

Melanie Colter with the Canadian PKU and Allied Disorders.

Alanah Duffy from MS Canada.

Meghan Dunn, Larry Funnel and Alice Chandler from Osteoporosis

Canada.

Joan King and Nafisa Merali from Diabetes Canada.

Alan Low, who is with MedAccess BC.

Jaymee Maaghop from the Canadian Society of Intestinal

Research.

Wendy Gerhart from Migraine Canada.

Antonella Scali from the Canadian Psoriasis Network.

I look forward to discussions with all of these incredible individuals

and organizations later today.

I ask the House to make them most welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, Trish Mandewo,

president of the UBCM. She is here at the B.C. Legislature with her full

team, UBCM executive team, as part of UBCM Advocacy Days, which take place

from April 24 to 26.

During this time, the UBCM executive team will be meeting with

ministers, parliamentary secretaries, caucus chairs and MLAs from all

parties to raise awareness and to continue dialogue on the current key

priorities identified by the whole UBCM membership. I look forward to having

these discussions with the president.

Will the House please make her feel very welcome.

T. Halford: This week, I missed two important events back home. I want to

congratulate the White Rock Ignite Dance team on their two gold medals

yesterday at the Shine Mission Dance competition.

One of those dancers has a special place in my heart. That’s Alexandra

Halford, who celebrated her tenth birthday.

[10:10 a.m.]

I want to wish her a happy birthday and say I’m not coming home with

Taylor Swift tickets, but I am coming home today. I look forward to having a

piece of cake with her at home.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s my great pleasure to welcome back to this chamber the consul

general of the Republic of Portugal, Mr. João Paulo Costa.

He’s no stranger to this place, but it’s certainly no accident that

His Excellency is here today visiting us in this place, a democratic

chamber, on April 25. We’re honoured to have his presence here today

because, for Portuguese people in Canada and around the world, this is known

as Freedom Day.

Today is a very special anniversary, and the celebrations will be loud

and long on the streets of Portugal, because it is the 50th anniversary of

what is known as the Carnation Revolution, which is a remarkable, if not

well-understood in this part of the world, occurrence in history: a

peaceful, popular uprising that took place on April 25, 1974, and toppled

one of Europe’s last surviving World War II–era fascist

dictatorships.

The carnation refers to the hundreds of thousands of ordinary

Portuguese citizens who took to the streets that day in towns and cities

across the country in support of the young officers’ rebellion. In Lisbon, a

mass gathering near the flower market led to the spontaneous placement of

flowers by citizens in the rifle barrels of troops and led them to withdraw

their weapons, almost without a shot fired. This marked and secured the

Salazar regime’s downfall.

Freedom Day celebrates the open, democratic, pluralist society that is

essential for Portuguese identity today.

It celebrates things that we cherish here as Canadians, with other

democratic countries — things like freedom of speech, freedom of

association, the end of arbitrary detention, as well as Portugal’s success

and prosperity from trade relations with the European Union and other

countries.

Victoria has always been blessed with a large and vibrant Portuguese

community. Obviously, the singer-songwriter Nelly Furtado, who is a global

superstar, is best known from this community, but generations of Portuguese

have contributed to building a better capital region.

I’d like to introduce not only His Excellency but a number of

Portuguese-affiliated citizens here with us today — mechanical engineering

professor Afzal Suleman, graduate student Shohreh Suleman, Ricardo Marques,

Diogo Bravo, João Figueiras and Sarah Suleman.

I think in celebrating Portugal’s strong affinity to democracy, as

Canadians, we can celebrate right alongside them at this particularly

important time in history.

I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for participating in

these celebrations in Burnaby. I know you were there with the Portuguese

community last weekend.

Would the House please make His Excellency and our guests most welcome

here today.

B. D’Eith: As Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film and on behalf of the

Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, I wanted to welcome today

members from the Union of B.C. Performers-ACTRA, who represent 8,600 British

Columbians who work in the motion picture industry and are really the heart

of the industry. During Creative Industries Week they’re here to meet with

ministers, MLAs and Premiers.

In particular, we have Keith Martin Gordey, who’s the president; and

then executive board member Shawn Macdonald; Aliza Vellani; Anisha Cheema;

Fred Ewanuick; Lexa Doig; and then the executive administrative director,

Karla Laird; the director of contracts, Lesley Brady; Angela Niu, who’s the

manager of engagement; Tracy Ho and Michael Cheevers, who are industry

relations officers.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. M. Rankin: In the gallery today, joining us are Roz Seyednejad and Hamed Noori of

an organization called SenseNet. They are joining us from North Vancouver

and West Vancouver, respectively, to discuss intriguing fire suppression

technology that they have developed. It was great to learn more about the

future of fire-sensing technology from them and about the community

partnerships that they are developing.

I’d kindly like all members to please make them feel

welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Tributes

SUSAN MAILE

C. Oakes: Our community has lost a very strong health advocate in our

community. I’ve lost a dear friend and a mentor.

Susan Maile was an active volunteer for many organizations,

including being a member of the G.R. Baker Memorial Hospital Auxiliary

for over 50 years. She was a key member in our community, starting local

Meals on Wheels. She was recognized as Citizen of the Year in 1991 and

received a B.C. Achievement Community Award in 2009.

Would the House kindly send their condolences to Dr. John Maile,

Sue’s husband of 60 years, to their children Andrew, Nicholas and

Stephen, and to their families.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ma: I have the honour of making two introductions today.

The first is Ms. Veronica Knott, who is a graduate from my alma mater,

the faculty of applied sciences at UBC. She is currently working as a mining

engineer with Newmont Corp., providing technical expertise and program

oversight of global mining technology solutions. She also serves as a member

of the board for Engineers and Geo­scientists of B.C.

My second introduction today is Darryl Krakowka, mayor of the district

of Tumbler Ridge, joining us here in the gallery today. Like many mayors

last year, in 2023 — and, unfortunately, like many mayors will find

themselves in 2024 — Mayor Krakowka found himself on the front lines of

emergency response in his communities, managing evacuations and supporting

community members from other parts, not just of our province but of other

provinces as well.

It’s an incredibly challenging time for mayors and chairs in our rural

and remote areas during the summer, especially with wildfire season starting

up so early this year.

Would the House please join me in making both Veronica Knott and

Darryl Krakowka feel very welcome — in particular, thanking the mayor for

his leadership last year. Hopefully, it is not required in this year’s

emergency season, but wishing the best for all of our communities in the

Interior and the North.

N. Letnick: In the gallery today, I would like to welcome the Canadian Counselling

and Psychotherapy Association, which is in B.C. this week to discuss the

importance of mental health counselling and the regulation of the

profession.

April is Counselling and Psychotherapy Month, and this year’s focus is

on environmental health. This focus directs our attention to the profound

impacts of our rapidly changing climate on the well-being of Canadians,

acknowledging the interconnectedness between environmental factors and

psychological wellness.

Would the House please help me welcome president Carrie Foster, B.C.

and Yukon director Michael Towers and B.C.

chapter president Richard

Tatomir.

M. Elmore: I have some very special guests here today in the Legislature from the

municipality of Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines. That is also the hometown of my

mother. I did not envision I would be actually welcoming friends from my

mother’s hometown of Tuburan, Cebu.

We have the mayor of Tuburan, Cebu, Aljun Diamante; with his wife,

Teresita Diamante; their daughter Jan Diamante; as well as attorneys Rheneir

Mora and Manuel Gordon from the Gordon Mora Diamante law firm.

They are accompanied by Felix Majica and Jelinda Friend, members of

the Cebuano Society of British Columbia here in Vancouver.

They are here to participate in the Lapu-Lapu Day block party. There

we are — up there. They are bringing organic coffee, Tuburan 360. They have

a vision for Tu­buran as an agricultural sector, all-organic, really

lead­ing the country.

They’re here, so invite everybody. Come try some organic Tuburan

coffee. Join the festivities. Everybody’s invited.

I ask everybody to please give them a very warm welcome.

E. Ross: There are two Kitimats in British Columbia. There’s a Haisla Nation

Kitamaat, the original founders of Kitimat, but there’s also the district of

Kitimat — different spellings. The district of Kitimat is an industrial town

that was actually built and owned by Alcan, the aluminum smelter company,

back in the 1950s.

[10:20 a.m.]

Following up on the Minister of Transportation’s introduction, I had

no idea that April 25, 1974, was the carnation celebration of freedom. I had

no idea. I grew up with Portuguese students and citizens in Kitimat. I

played soccer with them. I played basketball with them. Now that they’re

older, we’re playing golf together.

Anyway, the Portuguese community was a huge community in Kitimat. They

helped build the town. They helped build the smelter. Now that population is

thinning out because the younger generation is moving away.

The consul general…. I had dinner with him, João Paulo Costa, in

Kitimat on April 13. I understand he is here today as well to visit the

Legislature.

I would like to add my welcome to the Legislature to the consul

general of Portugal.

R. Glumac: I would like to introduce one of my constituents that is here today

from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Brandon

Dyck.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

I think I have another constituent here, but my glasses are not for

distance. Is that Jeff up there?

Okay. Jeff McClellan, another constituent of mine.

Please, would the House make him feel welcome.

J. Sturdy: I have the pleasure today to make two introductions.

Firstly, in the gallery is my friend, Tim Stanley. Tim is here in his

role as past chair of the ACEC-BC, but he’s also a constituent of West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky as well as a long-serving and some would say

long-suffering presi­dent of my B.C. United West Vancouver–Sea to Sky

riding association. I’d like to publicly take this opportunity to thank him

for his years and years of hard work, commitment and creativity.

Secondly, on the precinct is a class from Coast Mountain Academy,

which is a university prep school for students from grade 10 through grade

12 located in Squamish. Coast Mountain Academy was founded with the goal of

creating a culture of curiosity, compassion and inclusivity, while providing

an education that’s relevant in our modern world. Coast Mountain Academy

offers a rigorous academic program in the context of a well-rounded fine

arts, athletics and outdoor education program.

I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon for a discussion

about politics in British Columbia.

D. Davies: I do have a couple of folks in the chamber that I’d like to introduce,

Sean and Katie Lloyd. I have tried to look everywhere. It’s like finding

Waldo. I don’t know where they are, but they are in the chamber

somewhere.

Sean, originally from Fort St. John, now lives in Salmon Arm, is down

here picking his daughter, Katie, up, who is attending UVic.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

K. Falcon: I seek leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M212 — NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

K. Falcon presented a bill intituled Name Amendment Act,

K. Falcon: This legislation would prevent those convicted of dangerous

offences from legally changing their names.

British Columbians were horrified to learn last week that

convicted child killer Allan Schoenborn was allowed to change his name.

The government had every opportunity to prevent this monster’s

application for a name change with provincial powers under the Name Act,

but they chose to do nothing.

Currently Vital Statistics, under the Ministry of Health, has

complete authority to deny any change of name application that is

“sought for an improper purpose or is on any other ground

objectionable.” This government failed to use that to prevent

Schoenborn’s name change.

Since British Columbians cannot rely on government to exercise

their authority to prevent such unacceptable name changes for dangerous

criminals like Schoenborn, this legislation will force government to

reject them by default, automatically preventing those who have been

designated as a dangerous or long-term offender under the Canadian

Criminal Code from filing applications to change their name, instead

relying on government discretion.

[10:25 a.m.]

This is not complicated. In fact, this bill is based substantially

on existing legislation in Alberta and technically sound from a

legislative drafting perspective, so there is no reason why this bill

should not, and could not, be called for debate and passed

immediately.

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

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Now, Member, because the House didn’t have the information in

advance, in order to place this on orders of the day, the member would

also seek another leave from the House.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would seek leave to put it on the order

paper today.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the bill be placed on orders

of the day for second reading after today.

Bill M212, Name Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

KELOWNA ROCKETS HOCKEY TEAM

R. Merrifield: Today I rise to speak about a subject that is very close to my

heart, my Kelowna Rockets and their remarkable 2023-2024

season.

As a 20-year season ticket holder, my evenings have often been

highlighted by the thrilling games and the vibrant community spirit that

defines our Rockets team. This year, the Rockets demonstrated

exceptional skill on the ice, making it into the second round of

playoffs. They were defeated by Prince George. But I can take comfort in

knowing that at least it’s on a friendly side of the aisle. And at least

it wasn’t a building year like the Kamloops Blazers.

Now, I can talk about our outstanding scoring, skating and

strategy, but our Rockets are so much more. The owners, the Hamilton

family, ensure that the players and organization are relentless in their

efforts to contribute positively, going beyond expectations.

This commitment to the community was vividly dem­onstrated

by Ty Hurley, one of our Rockets players who performed a heroic act at

one of the hotels by saving a man’s life. On December 7, 2023, while

waiting in a hotel lobby, Hurley noticed a man struggling in the pool.

He quickly intervened, pulling the man out and performing life-saving

chest compressions until he revived. For his bravery, 19-year-old Hurley

received the Silver Medal of Merit and the M.G. Griffiths Award at the

112th annual Commonwealth Awards for Honour and Rescue.

The Kelowna Rockets are amazing athletes, but this story shows

what a source of immense local pride and inspiration they are to all of

us, including our youth. They bring us together in ways that make us so

proud to be a part of our great city.

Thank you to the Kelowna Rockets, the Hamiltons, the players and

the staff not just for the great hockey this season but for being

phenomenal community contributors.

And to all those diehard Rockets fans like I am, we will get that

cup next year.

Go, Rockets, go.

CHILD CARE FACILITIES IN

CAMPBELL RIVER

SCHOOLS

M. Babchuk: In my role as MLA for North Island, I constantly hear how

life-changing it is for families to have access to affordable, quality

and inclusive child care. That’s why, as the past chair of the school

district 72 board of education, I am happy to stand today and talk about

the fantastic made-in-school-district-72 initiative, in conjunction with

CUPE 723.

Child care on school sites has been a topic in this district for

many years, and I was excited to witness the opening of the first site

at Ripple Rock Elementary on Friday, April 12. This is the first of

seven before- and after-school care facilities that will be opened by

September, providing 210 additional spaces for parents to

access.

This just makes sense, that families have the convenience of child

care and school all in one seamless place. A seamless drop-off on the

way to work makes life so much easier for families and gives parents

peace of mind that their children are in one place for the entire

day.

In addition to benefits to families, the collaborative work

between the school district and CUPE means that more educational

assistants will have access to full-time employment close to home. They

will no longer have to travel outside their community or look to work

multiple jobs.

I would like to thank the people of school district 72, especially

board chair Kat Eddy and vice-chair Craig Gillis for their leadership;

superintendent Geoff Manning and Phil Cizmic, associate superintendent

responsible for child care; along with a long list of professionals that

made this come to fruition.

[10:30 a.m.]

Andrea Craddock, a long-time advocate for child care in our

community and president of 723, not only understood the value of child

care for families but also the opportunity for her members and for the

community.

Thank you to the ministers of state, past and present, for seeing

the value in this child care delivery model and the investment in child

care on the north Island.

Congratulations to school district 72 and CUPE 723.

Partnership truly is the new leadership, Mr. Speaker.

NEW KIJHL MUSTANGS HOCKEY TEAM

IN WILLIAMS

LAKE

L. Doerkson: I’m pleased to rise today and take a few minutes to speak about

the beloved sport of hockey in Cariboo-Chilcotin as well today. There

have been many greats that have come from our hockey programs — names

like Carey Price and Rusty Patenaude but also Christina, Margatz,

Gerrier, Williamson, Thomas, Zirak, Curly and Alexander. Frankly, far

too many to list.

Today I want to share news of a new hockey team we have in

Cariboo-Chilcotin. Hockey fans will now have twice the excitement in

Williams Lake, as we have a new KIJHL hockey team, the Mustangs. This

addition will help to strengthen the league and provide a natural rival

for the 100 Mile Wranglers.

This coming season, the Wranglers will be led by coach Levi

Stewart. He is a welcome addition to the club, and his experience will

help these young players develop their skill.

The Mustangs will be coached by Tyrel Lucas, who is part of an

amazing group of owners who are enthusiastic about hockey and the boost

that it will give to the region. They bring decades of hockey experience

at all levels and will help incorporate the team into our

community.

The Mustangs is an iconic and historic hockey club in Williams

Lake. Many of us recall numerous Mustangs alumni and look forward to

cheering the players on and definitely welcoming everyone to the

community.

The spring camps have been done, and the coaches are now working

on their rosters. Young players from around the province have tried out

and are waiting to see if they’ll be chosen to play.

We thank the new owners of the Williams Lake Mustangs for bringing

their team to the Cariboo-Chilcotin. We welcome the new players, their

families and all the fans. For years, the Cariboo-Chilcotin, of course,

has supported our Wranglers. We will now have an amazing new team to

cheer for.

I am sure that I will find myself incredibly conflicted every time

these two teams play, but trust me when I say this, Mr. Speaker: I will

be rooting for both of them.

Welcome to the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

AND CIVILITY IN PUBLIC

DISCOURSE

R. Russell: I’m sure, as many of us in this place…. I really love getting the

opportunity to go and meet with school groups, talk with the students,

talk with the teachers and learn what’s on their mind. I appreciate

their unfiltered, unbaggaged and beholden thoughts and

questions.

I had the opportunity to visit Christina Lake Elemen­tary

School students. Their top question, of course, was around Macey the cat

and the introduction of Macey the cat.

The second most important part of their conversation was around

the culture of this place. It was a fascinating conversation. They asked

about what they see, which is question period, and if that represents

how we engage with each other outside of that forum.

Fast-forward a week. I had the opportunity to meet with community

leaders at the Association of Kootenay and Boundary Local Governments

over the weekend. The number one liveliest debate resolution that they

brought forward was around discourse and treating each other civilly and

the interactions between the public as well as elected officials. I

think it is fascinating, this convergence around what we see out in the

public, around the challenge, the crisis, I would say, that we have

around civil discourse and the decline in civility in interactions

between people.

I think in this place…. It is fascinating, in the conversation

with these grades 4 and 5, to say: “What is our obligation in this

place, as leaders, as a group of people that are being watched around

the province, to lead by example?” Maybe, perhaps, we should be

operating a little more in this place as we would hope a grade 4 or 5

class would engage with each other.

[10:35 a.m.]

ACCESS TO SAFE WATER AND CLEAN AIR

S. Furstenau: Nearly 13 years ago we moved from Victoria to Shawnigan. Up until

then, I’d had the privilege and the fortune to not have to think about

drinking water. I had taken it for granted that I could turn a tap and

safe water would come out.

My time in Shawnigan taught me to value water far more than I ever

did before. Not only did our community fight to protect our drinking

water, but I’ve also experienced what it’s like when a well goes dry and

no water at all comes out. We can only survive without water for a

matter of days.

Ten years ago I started thinking about air. We woke up one summer

morning, and the sky was a deep orange. I put out a Facebook post. It

said: “Orange sky by morning, climate change warning.” It was our first

smoke-filled summer.

In the summer since then, I have found myself wondering if I can

do the things that help me feel well, cycling or jogging or hiking, or

if these activities will harm me because of the smoky pollution that

will burn my throat and cause my lungs to tighten and ache. My kids have

had to endure smoky skies for more than half of their summers. We had

childhoods free of smoke, free of fires, free of heat domes.

The particulate matter in the air does more than irritate us. It

kills. Air pollution is responsible for seven million deaths globally

each year. The thing we depend on most for our survival, air, is

increasingly causing us harm.

Take a breath, savour the feeling of full lungs, and then ask: how

much effort should we be putting into making sure that our kids and

their kids can know that they, too, will be able to breathe easy in the

summers ahead?

ALISON O’TOOLE AND CONTRIBUTIONS

TO ARTS AND

EDUCATION

J. Rice: I rise today to shine a light on my nominee for the 2024 B.C.

Achievement Community Award, Alison O’Toole.

She is an extraordinary individual whose contributions have

enriched the very essence of our community in Prince Rupert. In the next

two weeks, on May 8, I’m happy to say that she will be formally

recognized as a recipient of the award.

Alison O’Toole’s dedication to the arts and education has been

nothing short of exceptional. For three decades, she has been a driving

force behind our performing arts scene, captivating audiences with her

annual theatre productions and fostering a sense of belonging among all

who participate. Her tireless efforts have had a profound impact on the

many lives she has touched and the countless hearts she has uplifted

with her art.

Her dedication to fostering emotional intelligence, em­pathy

and self-expression has not only enriched our community but has also

empowered generations of students and adults to embrace their true

selves and pursue their passions unapologetically.

Her recognition by the Association of B.C. Drama Educators as

B.C.’s drama teacher of the year in 2021 is a testament to her

unwavering commitment to excellence and her ability to inspire others to

reach their full potential. But beyond the accolades, it is the lasting

impact she has had on countless lives that truly defines her

legacy.

Alison, we celebrate you not only as a deserving recipient of this

award but also as a beacon of hope and unity in our community. Your

passion, your dedication and your unwavering spirit serve as an

inspiration to us all.

Please join me in congratulating Alison O’Toole, a true champion

of the arts, a pillar of our community and a shining example of what it

means to make a difference.

R. Parmar: Can I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Parmar: I have two sets of introductions. I’ll be very brief. I know everyone

is excited for question period.

I can’t be in here and not introduce my friend Kody Bell, who is very

familiar to the people in this House.

Keep your phones away from Kody Bell. He is the Kodester.

He used to be my constituent. He used to be the constituent of my

predecessor as well. He’s now the constituent of the MLA for Saanich South.

So we had a long drive this morning, out to Saanich South, to pick him up.

We stopped by Tim Hortons in hopes of getting some Smile Cookies. We’ve got

to wait a week before they come out.

[10:40 a.m.]

Kody has been a good friend of mine and a good friend of former

Premier John Horgan. It’s great to see him in this House. He reminded me

that he’s famous. He’s in Richard Zussman’s book. Everyone should read

it.

Would the House please join me in making Kody feel very welcome here

today.

Mr. Speaker, while they’re not in the House and I know you won’t let

me interrupt question period, the Ruth King Rockets are in the House here

today with incredible staff, parent volunteers, Kelly — a grade 5 class just

across the street from my community office in Langford.

Will the House please joyously make the Ruth King Rockets welcome in

hopes that maybe they hear us in the hallways.

J. Rice: My sincere apologies. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Rice: This week while the Haida were here in the chambers and 100-and-some

were up in the gallery, I had inadvertently made an error, so I’d like to

just quickly take a moment to correct that error. Actually, the error

happened when I was outside, but in introductions, I failed to make an

introduction.

In Haida culture, you need to publicly right that wrong, and you also

have to pay the recipients some money, which I will do for Lonnie Young, who

is a Hereditary Chief in Kitagat, Gaahlaay.

As I said earlier in my introduction, I talked about the two dialects

of Old Massett and Skidegate. With us, I failed to introduce both Hereditary

Chiefs representing Old Massett and Skidegate.

I recognize Frank Collison, one of the main Hereditary Chiefs of Old

Massett, Stithlda, his name, Frank Collison.

But my apology goes to Chief Lonnie Young Gaahlaay for failing to

introduce him.

Lonnie, or Gaahlaay, I do intend to send you a card with money. Thank

you.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND SUBSTANCE USE

POLICIES

K. Falcon: Under this Premier’s reckless decriminalization experiment, we’ve

seen record-breaking drug-related deaths and an explosion of

violence.

In our hospitals, nurses are now compelled to hand out crack pipes

and needles and even teach users how to inject drugs into their IV

lines.

We have businesses profiteering from addiction, exploring business

models for the commercialization of cocaine.

His public health officer is aggressively pushing to legalize hard

drugs like methamphetamine, heroin and fentanyl, treating them as

casually as cannabis.

Secret government reports commissioned under this Premier’s watch

look at market impacts and profiting off of legalization.

This radical Premier has consistently championed…

The Speaker: Member.

K. Falcon: …the legalization of dangerous drugs like meth and crack cocaine

and driven us to this crisis. British Columbians are tired of

this.

When will this Premier finally adopt B.C. United’s policy to end

the NDP’s catastrophic decriminalization experiment?

The Speaker: Members must refrain from calling names and attaching labels when

people are addressing each other.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question on an issue that’s

important to many British Columbians: on the one hand, the deaths of

thousands of British Columbians and their families and their friends who

are devastated by those deaths.

There are members in this chamber who have been directly and

personally affected and British Columbians across the province who have

been affected.

It was in the spirit of addressing this issue, I know, that at one

point the Leader of the Opposition was proud of supporting a safe

injection site in British Columbia — at the time, a significant thing.

There was a lot of public anxiety about it, but it was to prevent

deaths. It was to prevent the transmission of HIV and

hepatitis.

There was an all-party committee where we sat together and heard

from families struggling to get loved ones access to care, struggling to

respond and asking for government to try different approaches to deal

with this crisis. That’s why both sides of this House and the chiefs of

police supported moving ahead with decriminalization.

[10:45 a.m.]

That doesn’t mean that we accept the disorder on the streets in

our communities, people not feeling safe in parks and playgrounds and

businesses in our province and hospitals. The Minister of Health is

working with health officials right now to ensure that everybody is safe

in our hospitals. We’re working with police and key stakeholders to make

sure they have the tools they need to address public order issues in

British Columbia.

The member says “BCUP policy.” Well, it depends on the

day.

I’ll say this to the member. Our commitment is to British

Columbians, to support those who are sick with addiction, to get them

the help they need, to do our best to keep them alive and to ensure that

their communities are safe right across the province.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Once again, I’m sure the Premier doesn’t mean to mislead the

House, but unfortunately, he’s giving information that….

He must know by now, because the record has been corrected

multiple times, that when he tries to suggest that the official

opposition ever supported decriminalization, he knows that’s wrong. In

fact, we not only not supported it, but we made it very clear to this

Premier and his reckless government approach to decriminalization that

it wasn’t going to work.

In fact, it was this Premier and his government…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: …that in 2020 had in their own election campaign promise that they

were going to fast-track the decriminalization of drugs. Any claim that

the all-party Health Committee played a role or endorsed the NDP’s

effort to fast-track implementation of decriminalization is utterly

false. The decisions were made before that committee was ever

struck.

Only in the NDP’s British Columbia could you have a situation

where you’ve got an 80-year-old patient lying next to someone smoking a

crack pipe. But that’s the reality under this Premier and this NDP

government. Despite record-breaking deaths and criminal

activity…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: …the Premier stubbornly defends his catastrophic decriminalization

policy.

His push to expand these measures to full legalization of heroin,

meth and fentanyl has deep roots. The Premier once wrote on

Facebook….

Interjections.

K. Falcon: You might want to listen to this. I quote the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, the Leader of the Official Opposition has the

floor.

K. Falcon: The Premier once wrote on Facebook: “We’re in favour of the

legalization and regulation of all currently illicit drugs.”

British Columbians have had enough.

After seeing the disastrous consequences of his policies, how can

British Columbians trust a Premier who has long championed such extreme

views to fix the disaster caused by his reckless and failed

decriminalization experiment?

Hon. D. Eby: British Columbians are concerned about the deaths. They are

concerned about making sure that people have a chance to stay alive to

get into treatment. They want to make sure, as well, that their

communities are safe.

These are perfectly reasonable and understandable concerns that

are shared by everybody on this side of the House, and we will ensure we

deliver those things to the extent we are able to do so with the powers

that we have here in the Legislative Assembly. Those are our goals for a

B.C. where we treat people with compassion and understanding and we also

make sure that communities are safe.

Now, the member has his own revisionist history, but it was an

all-party committee that came together and ratified….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, Members.

Members will be….

Enough, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The current House Leader, who sits beside the Leader of the

Opposition, stood in this place and said: “We support that. We support

that report.”

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: It was the all-party committee.

Now, I understand that they don’t want to admit that. That’s okay.

But for us in government, we have to work with the reality on the ground

of making sure that people are supported in getting into

treatment…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order, please.

Hon. D. Eby: …and that communities are safe. We’re going to continue to do that

work for British Columbians.

Interjections.

[10:50 a.m.]

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members on both sides, when a question is asked, we expect the

other side to be quiet. And when the answer is provided, we have the

same expectation from the other side. Please, let’s follow

it.

R. Merrifield: People are not safe. British Columbians are exhausted. And they’re

exhausted by this Premier’s extreme policies.

Despite the record level of drug-related deaths and crime, this

Premier refuses to back down on decriminalizing hard drugs like meth,

heroin and fentanyl. But perhaps he refuses to back down because deep

down he actually wants to go further to full legalization. He told the

media: “If you want to take your welfare check and spend the whole thing

on crack, that’s your right.”

How can British Columbians trust a Premier who, despite the

devastating consequences we see every day, refuses to back down and

continues to push for the full legalization of hard drugs?

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve been clear, and I’ll say it again. We’re going to do

everything we can to ensure people are able to access treatment, they’re

able to stay alive to be able to access treatment…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …and to make sure that our communities are safe. We’re going to

continue to do that work.

To the members on the other side, just to refresh their memories,

the Leader of the Opposition, September 23, 2023, Today in B.C.

podcast: “Some of the chiefs of police were supportive of

decriminalization. What they were supportive of is not charging people

for small amounts of drugs, and I agree with that.”

The member for Surrey South, February 27, 2023: “The minister

talked about decriminalization, and it has been made clear that all

parties had supported decriminalization.”

Member for Surrey South again, March 3, 2023…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order, please.

Member for Surrey South….

Hon. D. Eby: …CBC: “I don’t want to come across as not in favour, because

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

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

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

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

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

hearts, we want to save people.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission has a supplemental.

The member for Kelowna-Mission has the floor.

Members. Members.

R. Merrifield: If the Premier is so convinced that we support decriminalization

over here on this side, I would welcome a vote in which we can all stand

and actually be noted.

What I didn’t hear from the Premier’s response just now, was

actually that he wasn’t marching us full headstrong into legalization of

all hard drugs. Despite the escalating chaos, the government’s public

health officer aims to expand and fully legalize hard drugs like meth,

crack cocaine, fentanyl, akin to the cannabis legalization. The

government conceded it commissioned Dr. Caulkins to evaluate expanding

this disastrous drug policy but continues to withhold the secret report,

even hiding behind a non-disclosure agreement. Surprise,

surprise.

British Columbians are demanding that this government adopt B.C.

United’s policy to end the Premier’s reckless and failed

decriminalization experiment, yet behind closed doors, the NDP is

doubling down to legalize and profit from meth, cocaine and

fentanyl.

Will the Premier release Dr. Caulkins’ secret report today and

assure British Columbians that not another cent of taxpayer money will

be wasted on expanding their failed experiment to decriminalize

dangerous hard drugs?

Interjection.

[10:55 a.m.]

The Speaker: Members, the question has already been asked. Please wait for your

turns.

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows what she’s saying is not true. She knows that

because I can read the quotes from the member who’s sitting literally

beside her.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, there is no need for interjections, please.

Member for Surrey South. This is the second time I’m warning the

member for Surrey South.

Please. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: “Does it mean that our party doesn’t support decrim or harm

reduction? Absolutely not. We do. With our whole hearts, we want to save

people.”

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Oh, it’s the Leader of the Opposition, in that case. So that’s

just one member.

How about the Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, Members.

Members, calm down. Please, let’s wait for the answer. If the

answer is not acceptable, sure, you can ask a next question.

Members, no arguments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, no arguments,

please.

Hon. D. Eby: I just don’t know exactly which quote of the leader is accurate.

decriminalization.” September 23, 2023, Today in B.C. podcast:

“Some of the chiefs of police were supportive of decriminalization. What

they were supportive of is not charging people for small amounts of

drugs, and I agree with that.”

It’s hard to understand the BCUP policy because it changes week to

week to week. If the member wants to be quoted accurately, I’m happy to

do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

The House Leader, Third Party, has the floor now.

Members, later on we will be complaining that not enough time was

given to the opposition for questions, so let’s please keep that in

mind.

STATUS AND INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT

OF CONSERVATION

OFFICER SERVICE

A. Olsen: Today I ask my question on behalf of nature and more than 600

bears and their orphan cubs.

The B.C. conservation officer service is essentially the

Environment Minister’s own little army. It’s a heavily armed service of

special provincial constables with unlimited appointments, no

constabulary independence, no arms-length oversight. Unlike other

constables, under

section 106 of the Environmental Management Act, the

B.C. conservation officer service is “under the direction of that

minister.”

As I learned from the Environment Minister’s colleague this week,

the only way for the conservation service to have basic independence,

the basic independence and arms-length oversight that British Columbians

expect from people with those unlimited appointments, is for the

Environment Minister to ask.

In my response today, will he turn to his colleague and ask that

the B.C. conservation service be designated a police or law enforcement

service effective immediately?

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

Notwithstanding the fact that characterizing the women and men who

work in the conservation officer service, protecting communities, valued

by communities, protecting wildlife and generally ensuring that

activities around the interface between humans and animals and the

safety of animals and nature against poachers and others, are dedicated;

they’re the furthest thing possible from a private army directed by a

minister.

There is a chain of command in the conservation officer

service.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. G. Heyman: The Solicitor General and I have had many conversations around the

appropriate oversight and phasing different bodies into the Police Act

since a decision of the courts affirmed that the conservation officer

service was, in fact, in certain circumstances, a special

constabulary.

What I will tell you is that the conservation officer service

supports the implementation of third-party oversight as a tool to

enhance transparency and public trust. We are working on

that.

[11:00 a.m.]

We currently also have measures in place that provide for

oversight and response to complaints. We have a new position, the

inspector of provincial standards, to monitor and provide oversight of

complaints. We are working with other bodies. We developing a response

to the public that wants to see oversight.

The member can shake his head, as he often does when I provide

factual answers, but they are the facts.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Olsen: The minister knows where the chain of command ends, and it’s at

his feet. That’s where the chain of command ends. It’s unique for people

with these unlimited appointments to be under the direction of a

minister. In fact, all we need to do is go back to the bill debate this

week for the Minister of Public Safety to admit that he doesn’t have the

same powers over people with these unlimited appointments as the

Minister of Environment does.

So I am shaking my head for good reason, because the people that

he characterized, good people, in the B.C. conservation service, don’t

have the basic level of safety and security that their colleagues who

are working for municipal police services have. We expect that. That’s

the confidence that we can have in our police services when we give them

these powers.

That’s the expectation that the people that they work alongside….

The RCMP officers, the municipal police services expect that the people

working alongside them have the same oversight. That doesn’t exist in

this province, and it was a basic admission from the Minister of Public

Safety earlier this week.

I wonder why it is that the Minister of Environment wouldn’t want

the people who investigate crimes against nature to have independence in

those investigations. When was the last time that we saw, in this

province, an environmental investigation lead to charges of any level of

seriousness? I wonder why that’s the case.

Anyway, we can’t sell that we have got this exceptional framework

in this province…

The Speaker: Question, Member.

A. Olsen: …gloating that we have world-class resource extraction standards,

if our nature cops are the enforcement puppets of the cabinet

minister.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

A. Olsen: My question to the Minister of Environment: will he turn to his

colleague the Minister of Public Safety and ask him today, right now in

front of the people of British Columbia, to designate the B.C.

conservation officer service as a police or law enforcement service

effective immediately?

Hon. G. Heyman: It is sad that the member opposite, the House Leader for the Third

Party, simply can’t hear or comprehend the answers that are

given.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let the minister….

Members. Members, we are wasting time in question period.

Please.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. G. Heyman: I have never said I don’t support independent oversight. In fact,

I do.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Member.

Hon. G. Heyman: In fact, the conservation officer service has adopted the practice

of hiring an external lawyer to conduct investigations into any alleged

serious misconduct complaints.

We will continue to look at new measures and are currently looking

at new measures to ensure that the public can have trust that their

complaints are handled independently with integrity and

transparently.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

B. Banman: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over

and over and expecting a different result. That is exactly what this

B.C. NDP government is doing with their radical and experimental

decriminalization of hard drugs.

Decriminalization was introduced by the B.C. NDP and supported by

B.C. United, who voted in favour of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Interjections.

B. Banman: I would remind this House….

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

The Speaker: The member will continue.

B. Banman: I would remind this House of when the member from South Thompson

stood up and yelled, “Of course, we support decriminalization,” and he

got a standing ovation from that team when he did it.

[11:05 a.m.]

B.C. has set a record of 2,511 suspected illicit drug deaths since

2023, despite the NDP decriminalization pilot. Jurisdictions like Oregon

are now reversing their decriminalization programs because they have

figured it out. Decriminalization does not work. When this NDP Premier

inevitably decides…

The Speaker: Question, Member.

B. Banman: …to reverse decriminalization or, better yet, when he gets his

best buddy Trudeau…

The Speaker: Let’s have a question, Member.

B. Banman: …to pull the plug in exchange for keeping the Liberal NDP carbon

tax, will this NDP Premier commit to compensating the families of the

victims who died as a result of his radical experiment, or will he try

to sweep it under the rug?

Hon. J. Whiteside: The member opposite is right that we lost 2,539 British Columbians

last year to an unprecedented public health emergency. In fact, we have

just acknowledged and commemorated the eighth anniversary of the toxic

drug crisis, a crisis that not only British Columbians are grappling

with but every single jurisdiction across the country, across the

continent — communities who are in the grips of a fentanyl crisis, an

illicit drug supply that is poisoned, that is contaminated with high

concentrations of vicious drugs that are killing people.

That is the context in which we are working to bring every single

tool we can to support people who are struggling with addictions, to

keep them alive so we can connect them to care, to support their

families, to build out those pathways, to support our health care

workers who are in the trenches day after day trying to match and keep

up with the viciousness of organized crime and predatory drug dealers

who are doing this to our communities.

We are going to continue to do that work. We are going to continue

to use every single tool that we can to protect our

communities.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Banman: The biggest drug dealers in this province are now this

government.

The Speaker: Member.

B. Banman: There is no justification…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Member will withdraw that comment, please.

B. Banman: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

There is no justification for keeping a policy that has endangered

so many British Columbians. This is dogma, not science. I truly hope the

Premier would reverse course on his radical policy instead of doubling

down.

The commonsense approach of the Conservative Party of B.C. is to

prioritize prevention and recovery so we can get people back to living

healthy lives. But it sounds like the Conservatives will have to wait to

introduce commonsense policies after we form government in

October.

In the meantime…

The Speaker: Question, Member. Question.

B. Banman: …I will ask the question again. Will this NDP government

compensate families of victims who have died as a result of this radical

experiment of decriminalizing drugs?

Hon. J. Whiteside: This is indeed a very, very serious question, very serious for the

people who are watching, potentially, these proceedings. It’s very

serious for people who maybe don’t know where to turn for help if

they’re struggling with an addiction, where they need to reach out and

get care.

I want people to know, I want British Columbians to know we are

doing everything that we can to make access possible to connect them to

care, that there are places where they can reach out and get

help.

This is a terrible scourge that we are experiencing. Our

neighbours next door in Alberta saw a 17 percent increase in mortality

last year. Saskatchewan, a devastating increase in mortality

there.

We know that it is absolutely critical that we work across the

whole continuum, that we make those investments in treatment. We have

made unprecedented investments to stand up treatment beds, to stand up

access. We’re going to continue to do that work with our

partners.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM

AND RESPONSE TO

ISSUES

S. Robinson: On Monday, the Premier extended a Pass­over greeting, noting

the dramatic rise in antisemitism. Yet his touted responses — Holocaust

education, anti-racism funding and a racist incident hotline — are all

long-standing initiatives that have been years in the making.

[11:10 a.m.]

We have a community under attack, and the only thing new that

government can muster is financial help to hire additional security.

These measures do not address the immediate and escalating threats

facing the Jewish community today. I know that the Premier and the

Attorney General spoke with the special envoy for Holocaust remembrance

and antisemitism just yesterday.

I want to know: when will the Premier finally take the rise of

antisemitism seriously, put a real, actual plan together that

specifically targets and combats antisemitism in our schools, in our

post-secondary institutions and in the public service?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows we take racism very seriously. I’ve shared with

the member, in the multiple times the member has raised questions around

this, the list of things we’ve done. I won’t repeat them

again.

I can share with the member that on April 17, we pro­vided

$200,000 to the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver. I think it’s

important to note that these dollars are called for by the

community.

Jason Murray, who is the chair of the community security advisory

committee for the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, said: “This

announcement will help provide relief to our organizations to provide

services to children, seniors, families and the most vulnerable people

in our community.”

The work we’re doing continues. We continue to engage with the

community.

The Premier and the Attorney General also just met last week with

the special envoy for preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting

antisemitism. It was im­portant to note that the special envoy

said: “B.C. is leading the country in doing innovative work — work on

reporting hate crimes, work on tackling the scourge of hate and

antisemitism.”

We understand there’s fear in the community. We’re committed to

continue to work with the community to ensure that people feel safe in

our communities. This is something we’re committed to. This is not

something that we just started doing. This is work that we’ve been doing

since 2017, since we formed government.

M. Lee: When the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville stands up in this

House, as she did to remark upon the Passover statement yesterday in

two-minute statements, you need to hear her. All members of this House

need to hear her. She has taken the step to step off and resign from the

cabinet. She has taken the step to resign from the government caucus,

and she’s now on this side of the House asking some very important

questions on behalf of not just the Jewish community but all communities

concerned about civil society.

When we have any person in this province who has to live in fear

from being targeted on our streets, in our communities, on university

and college campuses for who they are…. All we hear from this

government, from this Premier and this Attorney General, who don’t have

the common decency to stand up in this House to address the serious

questions that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been asking….

It has been over six months.

The fact that the Premier and Attorney General have now reached

out to the special envoy to deal with antisemitism in Canada…. The

member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been speaking with that special

envoy on a weekly basis since November, and that member had been leading

the charge to address antisemitism on university and college campuses

with other Ministers of Education across Canada.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

M. Lee: And this Premier chose to sack her. What kind of action is

that?

The Speaker: Question, Member.

M. Lee: Mr. Speaker, we have a community under attack, and all the

government can muster is financial help to hire additional security from

that attack. This Premier’s dismissive approach to evident antisemitism

with this government and caucus, as called on…

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

M. Lee: …by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, has deeply eroded

public trust. Immediate steps should include adopting the IHRA

definition of antisemitism into law and taking concrete action now to

stamp out antisemitism in our province, which is so

pervasive.

The Speaker: The member will ask a question.

M. Lee: But any steps, first and foremost, must be an independent and

transparent inquiry into antisemitism within his NDP party…

The Speaker: Member.

M. Lee: …and within caucus and the cabinet. That is crucial.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

M. Lee: Will the Premier commit to these immediate and necessary actions

today?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to start by saying I respect the work the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville did around addressing antisemitism. I respect

the work that she did standing up to anti-LGBTQ hate in her community.

The member knows that. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve said it on numerous

occasions.

The member asked questions, and I shared the things we were doing,

significant things. The special envoy said that we’ve made significant

steps. We know there’s more work to do.

With all due respect to the member across the way, I will not be

taking lessons from him on how to address anti-racism or antisemitism. I

will not.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can get to you too.

The Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh, Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is a party that, when they had the opportunity when they were

on this side, do you know what they did? They created a quick-win

document, which said: “You know what? How can we take political

advantage of people’s struggles?” That’s what these guys did.

When we brought people….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is important, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, let the minister conclude, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That’s enough, Member.

Hon. R. Kahlon: When we brought people who have faced racism in our communities to

the chamber when we introduced the anti-racism legislation…. The person

who just spoke, the critic — do you know what he called it in the

Legislature? He said it’s a stunt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: He called it a stunt.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Let me just end with this. If the members want to hear the

answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order now. Members, shhh.

Members, please, let’s be quiet for a minute.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Let me end with this. We take antisemitism, any form of hate

against anyone very seriously. We constantly are pushing back against

that. I’ve listed a whole host of things that we’ve done since the

vicious attacks on October 17.

We are committed to continue to work to make sure people feel safe

in this community. If the member has suggestions, I’m always happy to

hear her suggestions.

[End of question period.]

Points of Order

T. Stone: I just want to take this opportunity, post–question period, to move a

point of order. While we completely understand and appreciate that there can

be rhetorical flourish and rhetoric in question period, it is also important

that the exchange that we have in this place be factual and that it be

truthful.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Please continue. You have the floor.

T. Stone: During question period, the member for Abbotsford South made a very

clear statement that was completely untrue, where he said that there was a

vote held on decriminalization and that the official opposition voted in

favour of that vote.

There has never been a vote on decriminalization. There­fore,

the official opposition has not voted on that matter at all. If there was a

vote, we would vote no. We have said that over and over.

We told this government decriminalization wouldn’t work. The only

party that was committed to decriminalization was the NDP. They had it in

their platform in 2020.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: It was the NDP government that actually sought the exemption from

Health Canada in the first place before the provincial Health Committee had

actually held a single meeting. There were no votes on this matter

whatsoever.

Therefore, if truth actually matters to the member for Abbotsford

South, I would ask that the member resume his place in this chamber and that

he retract his comments that he made earlier today.

E. Sturko: I, too, rise on a point of order. I think that it probably wasn’t

intentional. I think that context does matter when speaking about

quotes.

Interjection.

[11:20 a.m.]

The Speaker: The member has the floor.

E. Sturko: It’s important to note that while there were initially talks and

discussions about decriminalization, and I was encouraged in listening even

to words from this government about decriminalization, there were assurances

that guardrails would be put in place.

I think it’s important to note that, looking at the context of how

those guardrails were ignored and how time and again we have now heard

evidence from police and other experts come forward about the fact that more

and more safety issues have been brought up…. I think that it is quite

misleading to use quotes from me that came at a time when we were all under

the belief that this government would uphold the guardrails that it has

failed to do.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair would like to point out that the points of order

are noted for the record as points of clarification under Standing Order

42(1).

I want to say thank you to both members for speaking up. Thank you so

much.

Petitions

H. Yao: I rise to present a petition to the House with 64 signatures for

parents seeking help preserving the UTP allowance, known as the transition

program for gifted students.

The Speaker: Thank you. One more?

H. Yao: I rise to present a petition to the House with 9,894 signatures

regarding a request for a substance pre­vention education program in

B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 27 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 27 — REFERRAL OF

CIVIL FORFEITURE ACT REVISION

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 27, which outlines the terms of reference for the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct,

Standing Orders and Private Bills, of which notice has been given in my

name on the order paper.

[That the revision of the Civil Forfeiture Act (S.B.C.

2005, c. 29) be presented to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

for examination and recommendation pursuant to

section 3 and 4 of the

Statute Revision Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 440).

That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and,

d. retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee.

That the Committee report to the House as soon as possible, and that

during a period of adjournment, the Committee deposit its reports with

the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may

be, the Chair present all reports to the House.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call third reading of Bill 19, Children and

Family Development Statutes Amendment Act.

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

Bill 17, Police Amendment Act.

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

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low-Carbon Innovation.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — CHILDREN AND FAMILY

DEVELOPMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Bill 19, Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act,

2024, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call seconding reading of Bill 25, Haida Nation

Recognition Amendment Act.

[11:25 a.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

M. Lee: I am pleased to rise again to continue with my remarks on second

reading to Bill 25, the Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act,

Let me just start by saying that I appreciate the ongoing dialogue

with the Council of the Haida Nation. I’ve had further opportunity to

have some discussion with a representative yesterday after I first

spoke.

I look forward, with the Leader of the Official Opposition, to

have further dialogue with representatives of the Council of the Haida

Nation early next week. That dialogue is important. I am grateful to the

council for initiating that, when they reached out and met with me in my

office just after Minister Rankin, the Minister of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation, had announced the progress made on a draft agreement

between the province of British Columbia and the Haida Nation

itself.

I also would like to say that I also recognize the work the Haida

Nation has done over decades and in the context of this agreement, as

well, and the steps that they’ve taken with the government of British

Columbia over 20 years with the former Gordon Campbell–led B.C. Liberal

government, for which the Leader of the Official Opposition was a member

of the executive council, the progress that was made, particularly after

2004 and the progress that was made under Premier Christy Clark when she

was the leader of the B.C. Liberal government as well. And now, of

course, Premier John Horgan and this current Premier.

As was said at first reading…. President Alsop and myself had a

brief conversation in the corridor before first reading began. President

Alsop reminded me that the Haida Nation is not going anywhere. I took

that comment in many different ways, but one way to take that comment is

that governments of British Columbia will come and go. The Haida Nation

will remain on Haida Gwaii, and the recognition of their title is

fundamentally important, certainly to the nation but also to our

province. That is the path that we’ve been on.

I appreciate, again, that it has been a very, very long path. And

I appreciate that there are concerns, just like there were concerns when

we were reviewing UNDRIP in this House and in this chamber, in second

reading and in committee. When you have members of the official

opposition like myself and the Leader of the Official Opposition calling

for a pause in the process, it’s meant from a place of getting clarity

and understanding.

[11:30 a.m.]

I appreciate that the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation, on second reading, took the opportunity to again spell

out the government’s view about the agreement in Bill 25, but it’s in

part because of the Premier’s positioning of this historic agreement and

this bill that we’re concerned. British Columbians need to have a fuller

understanding of this new model, this new approach to addressing

Aboriginal title in our province, to the extent that the Premier has

said repeatedly, and even in this House on first reading, that this will

be a template for other approaches relating to title with First

Nations.

I recognize all the guests in this chamber that were here on first

reading. I said it then, and I said it at the beginning of my second

reading speech: I continue to hope that people understand, to hear me

when I speak on behalf of the official opposition, that we have

tremendous respect for the Haida Nation, the Council of the Haida

Nation. That’s the reason why, even under an abridged circumstance a

year ago, we supported the act which we’re now amending with Bill 25,

the Haida Nation Recognition Act itself.

The concern that we’ve call upon for a pause twice, first on March

22 and again yesterday, to make this Bill 25 an exposure bill — to put a

pause on the process back on March 22 before the agreement was entered

into and signed — was because we need to have a clearer understanding. I

gave reasons for that already in my second reading speech.

I would say, even in this last question period we had prior to

this second reading and with the activities and the dynamics in this

otherwise, that it only underlines my point and my concern. To have a

clear, robust discussion of a fundamental change to how we will address

title in this province using the Haida Nation as a model, given their

unique history and title which we well recognize, that former

governments have all recognized over the last number of decades and as

recognized by the courts, certainly in the Haida decision of 2004 by the

Supreme Court of Canada…. This new model needs further review,

evaluation and understanding.

I look at the transcript of the statement of the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, having heard it in the chamber

yesterday, as well, in person. I’m a lawyer for 20 years. I went to UVic

law school, where the minister formerly was a member of faculty. We have

a similar understanding, I would expect. He has a longer understanding,

as we heard from the Premier, given the work he’s done over 4½

decades.

I have respect for that, but there are questions being asked by

members, practitioners in the legal profession that I know this

government has heard from and that I’ve heard from, members of the

official opposition. There are some serious questions being asked about

this whole arrangement, what’s set out in the agreement in terms of the

nature of Aboriginal title and how it can be set out.

[11:35 a.m.]

I know I’ve spoken to the exclusive nature of Aboriginal title.

The minister referred to this yesterday: that private property rights

are to be held in perpetuity. That’s not in the bill; that’s not in the

agreement. I understand what the minister said, but that’s part of the

concerns that we will view at committee stage: the nature of the

qualification, the confirmation that is set out in the agreement and in

the bill relating to fee simple interests and private property

rights.

How is it that an agreement can qualify a constitutionally

protected right around Aboriginal title, which is exclusive in nature?

When you look at the Tsilhqot’in decision by way of application, the

court left out private property interests. It was excluded from that.

We’ve talked about the communal nature of Aboriginal title as well, and

how it is held for generations to come, in this case, of the Haida

peoples.

As I’ve said, I appreciate that the Council of the Haida Nation

has, I’m sure, gotten their own legal advice on this, but to the extent

that this is a model and a template for other First Nations, it is

important to understand how Aboriginal title can be qualified in this

manner — how, as the minister suggests, that qualification around

private property is in perpetuity by way of an agreement, but the

agreement specifically doesn’t say that: the use of the words “in

perpetuity,” I mean.

How can an agreement do that vis-à-vis, in respect of, the

generations that come? How can the current leadership, the governance,

constitution…? The Haida Nation has a 50-year constitution. We’ve spoken

to that on a number of occasions, to respect and recognize the

governance structure of the Haida Nation. Still, how does any governing

body currently limit Aboriginal title in a way that will be qualified in

use for generations to come?

Aboriginal title under the constitution and through the courts and

decisions is inalienable. How is it that there is a positioning here in

the arrangement to transfer, in effect, the use of Aboriginal-titled

land to third-party private property interests?

These are three of the types of considerations around the nature

of Aboriginal title that go to the heart of what is, fundamentally,

spoken to here: a series of considerations around the core of the

agreement and the bill — the nature of Aboriginal title, the nature of

the Aboriginal title that this government is recognizing to be for the

Haida Nation, finally. That’s one set.

Another set of considerations is the transition period that’s

spoken to in the agreement and, as I mentioned yesterday, is also

referred to in some way under clause 2,

section 4.4 of the act that’s

being amended, under the title “Interim measures in relation to land.”

There is an acknowledgment, which is the word that’s used: “The

government of British Columbia acknowledges that the measures set out in

this

section are interim measures….”

[11:40 a.m.]

This is an area that we will want to have further understanding on

from the minister and his team at the committee stage. It is an area

that was touched on in my briefing on this bill from the ministry. What

I understood at the time is the transition period is what this is

speaking to. But the use of the words “transition period” is not in this

bill. The steps that are spelled out in the appendix to the agreement,

appendix A, “Transition process…” There’s a nine-clause provision. It’s

not specifically spoken to in this bill.

I have touched on one area of indication around dispute

resolution, which is jurisdictional in nature, between the Haida Nation

and the province of British Columbia. There are a number of steps to be

taken, to be identified, by way of agreement, on schedule. But if

there’s a dispute, if there’s a lack of agreement between the two

parties, what does that mean? Clearly, as confirmed again by the

minister, the transition period is an important period to

consider.

We know that, as identified in appendix A, protected areas and

forestry will be the first priority for the negotiations to come over

what is expected to be a two-year period. But in the words of the

minister, the intention is for the province to step back and provide for

Haida Nation management and jurisdiction in matters relating to Haida’s

Aboriginal title.

This speaks to an understanding of the transition of jurisdiction.

In this first case, over land management, protected areas…. Certainly,

under protected areas, there’s been clear understanding — which dates

back to that 2010 Act, the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, passed by the

former government under Gordon Campbell’s leadership as Premier — that

that joint and shared decision-making has been working well.

Here we’re talking about further transference of jurisdiction,

though, to the Haida Nation, which is consistent with the fact that

government is now recognizing by way of agreement, as they’ve done on

April 14 — and I do now have a signed copy of the agreement — and in

this bill.

That transfer of jurisdiction authority, which is happening over

this two-year transition period, to the extent there is a disagreement

about the use of schedule….

Schedule here, in the agreement, means the

jurisdictional arrangements, including for protected areas and forestry,

that are agreed to by the parties and form part of this

agreement.

This does speak to a point that I would make, which is that when

we are looking at this bill, all members of this House need to consider

the terms of the executed agreement on April 14. That agreement calls

for schedules that will form part of this agreement to come in the next

two years over this transition period.

[11:45 a.m.]

This is what we mean when the Leader of the Official Opposition

and myself use the term. It’s a promise to figure out details

later.

The way this agreement is structured is that the details around

land management; the schedules to this agreement; the jurisdictional

arrangements, as defined for protected areas, including for protected

areas and forestry; all of the jurisdictional arrangements beyond the

mirror, beyond the important recognition of Aboriginal title for the

Haida Nation…. All the other jurisdictional arrangements are to be

worked through, negotiated, determined, spelled out, and schedules to be

agreed upon will then form part of the agreement, which are then spoken

to in this bill as recognized as interim measures.

The interim measures that apply — which again, do take some

unpacking — need to be understood for clarity purposes under 4.4(2),

(3) and (4). That’s what they mean. In this interim period, in this

intervening period, for the next two years, how is Haida Nation title to

be addressed? How are, in (3), enactments of British Columbia that are

applied under subsection (2) in relation to the land that is held by

Haida Nation an Aboriginal title to be determined consis­tently

with that Aboriginal title in

section 35 of the Constitution Act,

1982?

That particular clause in this bill is another example of the

understanding — even during this two-year period, the interim period —

how enactments of British Columbia are to be applied. Now this

government is saying, in this bill, that those enactments will be

applied in a way which is consistent with Aboriginal title and

section

35 of the Constitution Act. This means, on its face, that somehow there

are additional qualifications, so to speak, as to how provincial

enactments will be utilized, even though there’s a transition period for

which we’re determining jurisdictional arrangements.

So there is a change. We need to understand what that change is.

When we’re talking about using this as a model and template for First

Nations in respect to title, it’s important that we understand what the

structure of this arrangement is.

(

a) We recognize your Aboriginal title — perhaps to all of your

claim, here, for Haida Gwaii. We’re doing that for the Haida

Nation.

(

b) We enter into a transition period for two years, or longer or

shorter. Here it’s two years. We recognize provincial enactments in the

interim measures period needs to be done in a way that’s consistent with

your

section 35 recognition of your Aboriginal title that we just

recognized through the way of this agreement and now with this

bill.

And (

c) we’re going to figure it out over the next two years, the

jurisdictional arrangements that the province will “step back from,” in

the words of the minister, in the areas of protected areas and forestry,

which are the two first areas identified in this agreement.

Those schedules will form part of the agreement between the First

Nation and the provincial government. If there’s a dispute about the

schedule, it goes to some options for dispute resolution, which include

mediation, arbitration, Haida tribunal, or another mechanism established

under Haida law. These are four options, in sequence.

I don’t know that there is a progression, an escalation. Is it

first mediation, then arbitration, then Haida tribunal, then another

mechanism established under Haida law? What is it? Which one of those

four will apply here? That’s important, because if there’s a dispute and

not an understanding an agreement on schedule, what does that mean in

this two-year transition period? What are the expectations that are

held?

[11:50 a.m.]

This is the reason why, as I said to date in my remarks on second

reading on this Bill 25, these are the kinds of important questions that

are being asked about this agreement, about this bill. We need to take a

pause to seek that clarity.

That pause, in our view, in light of the fact of where we are, in

the few weeks that remain in this legislative session, in the few months

that remain before the next election, with the dynamics that occur, even

in question period today and outside of this House, by other parties in

this House, by the government members of this House, by our side too….

We’re all in this. That this is not the time to have this serious

discussion…. We need to have a broader discussion.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

That’s the reason why we’re calling for this Bill 25 to be an

exposure bill.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that you’re here in this House again, I will

just reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment of the debate

on Bill 25.

The Speaker: Member, if you wish, you can continue for a few more minutes.

That’s fine.

M. Lee: Or I can continue for a few more minutes. Happy to

oblige.

I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on my last comment,

because again, the reason why we’re asking for this is that it’s not

just about members of the official opposition being able to ask

questions here or raise points in second reading and committee debate,

as we did with UNDRIP, but given the scope of what we’re talking about,

the importance of it, we need that broader conversation. We need to

ensure that British Columbians have a broader understanding of the

direction that we’re heading in with this first-in-Canada approach, not

just first in British Columbia. So this is an important model and

template, in the words that the Premier has continued to use.

With that, Mr. Speaker, that’s the reason why we’re calling for

this to be an exposure bill. This is not the time for British Columbia,

in the midst of all the dynamism, let’s say, in the House in question

period….

Interjection.

M. Lee: This has been a long time in the making. I hear a member say that,

and I’ve recognized that repeatedly. But the fact of the matter is that

the path towards reconciliation is not just about the nation-to-nation

relationship. It is about the other societal interests, ensuring that

there is a balance and understanding and appreciation and recognition

that this government is elected to have responsibility for all British

Columbians and that we have to bring all of British Columbia and British

Columbians along in this path to reconciliation.

Where we don’t do that, there have been serious concerns

expressed. We’ve seen that repeatedly in the aftermath of even the

adoption and

interpretation and application of UNDRIP by this

government, by the Land Act amendments, which they pulled back from.

We’ve seen continued missteps by this government, a failure to include

and involve and bring along British Columbians. This is the reason why

we continue to call for this Bill 25 to be made an exposure

bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will now reserve my place in the debate

and call for adjournment of the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

granted leave to sit again.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. N. Sharma moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 17;

H. Yao in the chair.

The committee met at 11:25 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill

17, Police Amendment Act, 2024, to order.

Clauses 57 to 59 inclusive approved.

On clause 60.

M. Morris: With respect to sub 40.02(3), it says, for the purpose of section

(1), that the director may conduct audits and investigations and inspect

records, operations and systems of administration of a board but only if

the director gives written notice of the inspection. I wonder if the

minister can advise how much notice he needs to give to meet the

requirements of this act.

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

There’s no specified time, but it would be informed by

administrative law.

Clauses 60 to 79 inclusive approved.

On clause 80.

M. Morris: I’m going to spend a little bit of time on this particular

section

here. This deals with regulations respecting designated policing. A lot

of the questions I have here will pertain to the regulations respecting

law enforcement as well.

In the regulations under 74.1, it talks about a number of things.

I want to go to sub-subsection (1)(e)(ii)(A).

It talks about “the powers, duties and functions of a designated

policing unit and its designated constables, chief officer and deputy

chief officers, including, without limitation, regulations that do any

of the following: prescribe all or any part of British Columbia as the

designated policing area; or prescribe powers, duties or functions for

the purposes of

section 14.06 (2) [powers, duties and functions of

designated policing unit], including in relation to (

A) the enforcement

of the bylaws of a municipality or regional district, the laws of an

Indigenous governing body or other laws, and (

B) the care, custody or

supervision of persons held in custody.”

One of the first questions I ask is: what are the laws of a

governing Indigenous body? Where are they? If the minister can kind of

point me in the right direction to what these are.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It would depend on the

nature of the nation in the sense that….

I’ll give two examples. For example, for a treaty nation, it would

be the treaty laws of that nation. If it was the Indian Act, it would be

the bylaws and the land code laws.

M. Morris: With respect to the treaty laws, those laws would be constituted

under the conditions of the treaty. Are they recorded in a manner that

is fully accessible to enforcement officers of whatever category there

might be?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to your first question would be yes. To the second, it

would be how they’re described in the treaty. The answer to that would

also be yes.

M. Morris: I note in the

definitions part of the amendment, it talks about

the definition of an Indigenous governing body as the same as under

DRIPA. It says: “means an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of

Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by

section

35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

I’m just wondering if the minister can go into a little bit of

detail on that, because that’s pretty broad. That doesn’t refer to

treaty, or it doesn’t refer to Indian Act issues. So this appears to be

broader to me. I’m just wondering if the minister can explain

that.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. He’s right. It is

broader, and there’s a main reason for that.

Under this section, as I mentioned a moment ago, treaty nations

have treaty laws, and the Indian Act has a land code and bylaws. There

are other Indigenous governing bodies that don’t have those authorities.

Or there could be, as opposed to just “there are.” There could be other

Indigenous governing bodies, but they don’t have law-making authorities.

If they wanted to do something, then there are other sections of the act

that would allow them to be able to do things. That’s why that term is

encompassed in this section.

M. Morris: I’m a little concerned about the minister’s answer. It’s

vague.

I’m not only speaking as the critic in this role, but I’m speaking

as a previous detachment commander and a previous law enforcement

officer and district officer in the RCMP. The police don’t enforce

ambiguous or nonexistent laws. They have to be constituted under the

Charter of Canada. I have enforced bylaws for First Nations bands that

are duly constituted by a band council resolution under the authority of

the Indian Act. Although I’ve never policed in a treaty area, I am

familiar with a lot of the laws that might be pertaining to an existing

treaty.

I’m a little alarmed at the broadness of this particular

definition and the liabilities, perhaps, that may arise if some young

constable is led to believe that he is enforcing the laws of a First

Nations governing body. I need some assurances from the minister that

whatever laws would be taking place would be duly constituted under the

constitution and on how that would act, because he did mention that

there are other First Nations governing bodies in the province that need

this authority. I’m just wondering what they are.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. Under this section, that definition

only applies to nations with law-making authorities, either under treaty

or under the Indian Act. That is it.

section 83, the definition will be there, and that will deal

with that broader definition outside of this section.

M. Morris: I’ll have to look at that over the lunch break.

I guess where I have trouble with this is the definition of

Indigenous governing body, which “means an entity that is authorized to

act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and

affirmed by

section 35” of the Charter. That’s a pretty broad definition

as well. I do understand

section 88 of the Indian Act giving powers to

band councils to pass resolutions, and I do understand the treaty

part.

This is very broad. This is, to me, quite alarming. I’m having

trouble trying to balance out what the minister has said with respect to

the definition that they have for Indigenous governing body. I still

think it’s quite broad.

I will, once we break for lunch, look at

section 83, did the

minister say? I will have a look at

section 83, but we will be coming

back after lunch or after our break here, and we will get into this a

little bit more at that particular time.

The Chair: Member, do you have a question?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND LOW CARBON

INNOVATION

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

chair.

The committee met at 11:26 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members.

I call Committee of Supply,

Section C, to order. We’re meeting

today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $121,111,000 .

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. J. Osborne: I do, Madam Chair, and thank you. I’ll try to be short because I

know time is of the essence. We’ll have a short beginning this morning,

but we’ll have all afternoon.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, he’s happy.

Let me just say, first of all, that I’m really pleased to be here

as we consider and debate the budget estimates for the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. I’m grateful to see my critic,

the member for Kootenay East, in the House here. I’m sure others will

join him and that we’ll have members from the other parties as well. I

look forward to their questions and the dialogue ahead.

I do want to acknowledge we are meeting here together on the

territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking

peoples.

I’m really grateful to have a phenomenal team of staff with me

today to support our time in estimates. That includes my deputy minister

to my left here, Shannon Baskerville.

As well, we have…. I’m going to introduce them all so I won’t need

to repeat this in the future: assistant deputy ministers Les MacLaren,

Nate Amann-Blake, Nat Gosman, Tania Demchuk and George

Warnock.

I will also be supported by the B.C. Energy Regulator

commissioner, Michelle Carr. Joining us from B.C. Hydro, we have CEO

Chris O’Reilly. We have Ryan Leighton as well. The CFO for the ministry

is being supported by Raman Dale, for the CFO. So thank you very

much.

We have a lot of staff online who are working to support, and I

want to thank them as well.

Just a few comments about the ministry so that I have an

opportunity to talk about some of the good work. As my colleagues here

in the room know, our ministry is small, but it does have accountability

for B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Energy Regulator and some of the largest

sectors of our economy.

Before we get into the debate, I wanted to highlight three

specific accomplishments of the ministry. The first is around the work

that we’re doing to keep B.C. Hydro rates affordable for people and

businesses. We’ve kept rate increases below inflation for six years in a

row, and rates are currently 12 percent lower than they would have been

under the former government’s ten-year rates plan.

We asked B.C. Hydro to crunch the numbers. That means that we’ve

saved people and small businesses and industry here in the province a

total of $1.725 billion on their hydro bills since 2017. This is really

good news at a time when global inflation is driving up so many costs.

It’s good to know that we are doing everything we can to keep the rates

as low as possible.

Second is the work that we’re doing to accelerate the transition

to electric vehicles. When we brought in the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

in 2019, critics told us that it couldn’t be done and that these targets

were too ambitious. But year after year, we’ve exceeded every single

target that we’ve set. And EVs represent currently almost one in every

four new cars that are sold today. That’s the highest sales rate in

Canada.

Economically, as well, the EV sector is growing. Compared to 2015,

the total economic output of the EV sector has increased 142 percent,

and it’s now $2.9 billion.

[11:30 a.m.]

Jobs have increased by 120 percent from 7,000 to 15,000, and the

total number of electric vehicle businesses is up by 94 percent from 198

to 384. Clearly, that’s an indication that this is part of our clean

economy of the future.

The third accomplishment is the work that we’re doing to support

the mining sector. In the past year, Ascot’s Premier mine has had its

first pour — in fact, just a few days ago. A major new mine operating

called Artemis Blackwater received its mines permit. It will be

operational this summer. And Osisko’s Cariboo Gold received its

environmental assessment certificate.

Since 2017, when we took office, we’ve seen a doubling of mineral

exploration expenditures here in the province. That’s investment that’s

coming here into B.C. to support companies and resources right at home.

We’ve succeeded in reducing the permit backlog by 52 percent, including

investments, in Budget 2024, that will further that success. I’m sure

that we’ll get into all these things and much, much more.

With that, I will end my opening remarks and look forward to the

questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Member for Kootenay East, would you like to make any opening

remarks?

T. Shypitka: Sure. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the minister for her opening comments. I’d like to

echo her appreciation for her staff. I know the staff work

hard.

I see a younger version of Les MacLaren sitting over there. Johnny

Strilaeff from CBT wanted me to say that and put it on the record that

he’s looking youthful with that soup strainer gone.

I will definitely address some of those key points that the

minister made. Keeping B.C. Hydro rates low, absolutely. We’re going to

go into that a little bit, maybe later today or on Monday. We’ll have to

see how those regulatory accounts were affected to keep those rates low,

and some other issues.

Zero-emission vehicle targets and the EV sector growing, of

course. I mean, anyone looking at the price of gas today will probably

be more incentivized to get an electric vehicle. We’ll be going into gas

prices as well.

Then, of course, the mining sector is something near and dear to

my heart. I think how I’d like to start is to do some testimonials. My

office gets overflooded sometimes by folks that are concerned about the

mining industry, where it’s going and the permitting process and some of

the slowdowns in the industry, to be quite honest, that they’re

facing.

I’ll first read a letter from a person that is in the jade

industry. I think the minister will know where this is going. I’ll just

read it. It came to me. Now, whether or not this is all factual, and the

minister can probably comment on it, I thought it was worth reading into

the record.

“Over the last 35 years, I’ve worked long and hard in northern B.C.

establishing a solid reputation as a jade miner. Some refer to me as a

pioneer of the B.C. jade industry, but I did not do it alone. I worked

with a great team. I made lots of friends and business partners along

the way, many of them Indigenous people. I’m very proud to have helped

build a global market for B.C. jade, bringing millions of dollars each

year into the northern B.C. economy. I thought British Columbia was a

great place to build my business and raise a family.

“My life changed on July 4, 2019, when the president of the Tahltan

Central Government arrived at our site in a helicopter and handed me an

eviction notice. He did not care that I had operated in the area for

over 30 years, had an excellent safety and environmental record, was

fully permitted and current on all mineral taxes. I had never met” — I

won’t mention the name — “the person from the Tahltan, but I was told

secondhand that he was concerned about the jade industry because of a

show he had seen on TV, called Jade Fever . My business was not

the one on that show. My practices were not the same as theirs.

“The eviction notice had no legal force, but the NDP government

decided it would accommodate the Tahltan president’s demands and used

its power to stop our jade company, and others, from operating. The

suspension lasted 24 months to start; then it was extended another 22

months. In that time, I lost my business, lost my global customers and

lost my faith in B.C. I was never given a specific reason why we were

forced to stop work. Two independent reports, at the request of the B.C.

government, gave glowing reviews of our reclamation work and

practices.

[11:35 a.m.]

“The inexplicable shutdown did not only affect our 30-person team,

who lost their livelihoods; it forced hardship on B.C. jade exporters,

manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and the community within our

mining area. I do not know what the future holds for us here, if

anything. I’ve had to hire lawyers, and I’m starting a lawsuit. Never in

a million years did I think this could happen, and now I’m considering

going to Afghanistan to develop jade deposits there. While I am worried

about my safety, it’s clear I have more ability to earn a living there

than in B.C. right now.

“Reconciliation with Indigenous groups is a great principle. I fully

support it and will do my part, but it cannot be achieved through unjust

actions that deprive people of their life’s work. I’m sharing my story

in the hope that others will share theirs. I believe there are many like

me, from small family businesses to large corporations, that are afraid

to speak, but they need to, because if this can happen to me, it can

happen to anyone.”

This is just a letter I’m putting on the record. I hear many

similar stories. The minister can comment. I guess the first place I’ll

go with it: does the minister acknowledge the moratorium placed, in

northern British Columbia, on jade mining? If so, what efforts have the

ministry done to resolve this? After now almost five years, this July 4,

when can we see some end in sight and give some clarity to jade mining

in northern British Columbia?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member from Kootenay East for the

question.

I wanted to start by acknowledging that yes, there is a moratorium

or a pause on jade mining at this time. In part, that’s because our

government is committed to environmental protection, to fostering a

well-regulated and safe mining industry that’s done in partnership with

First Nations and with industry.

We know that the mining sector is rich in opportunities for all

British Columbians. I want to acknowledge that when a pause like this

takes place — to do some of the difficult work, the work that we have to

do collaboratively with industry and First Nations — it does have

impacts.

[11:40 a.m.]

Although I can’t speak specifically to matters that are before the

court, so I’ll just make it clear right now that I’m not able to do

that, I certainly can speak to what’s taken place since the moratorium

has been in place. That is the work that our government is doing with

the Tāłtān Central Government, with the Kaska Dena and with industry to

address concerns around the environmental, economic and cultural

concerns about jade mining. The member referenced the television show.

For anybody who has seen the television show, it certainly, I think,

highlights some of the concerns that people have felt about industry and

why it’s so important to work collaboratively to reach a

solution.

Placer jade mining permitting decisions in northern B.C. have been

deferred until May 11 of this year, as the member, I’m sure, knows. That

has allowed us the time to work through recommendations for the sector

with the Tahltan and with the Kaska Dena. This is work that is focused

on alleviating concerns that jade miners have with the pause and putting

forward solutions that benefit everybody.

While operators can continue their work until the end of their

permits, the permits aren’t being changed during this deferral period.

So this work is ongoing. There will be more to say soon. We’ve had

excellent engagement with several of the jade operators, and I’m

grateful to them for that in the past several months. As the member

knows, we’re coming up on the end of that period, and government will

have more to say.

T. Shypitka: A couple things the minister said there. Yes, it is on

pause.

I’ll ask, maybe, the first question. The minister said we’re

coming to the end of that period. I’m not too sure what period she’s

talking about. Maybe she can explain the period she’s talking about,

because, first of all, it was a 24-​month period. Then it was

extended for another 22-month period. Now we’re past the 22-month

period. Now we’re going into a third period, I guess. I’d like to find

some timelines, some

definitions.

The minister said “soon.” We’re going to find out soon. Once

again, not definable on any actual timeline of what soon actually means.

Work is ongoing. I could certainly agree with that, to some degree,

because it’s been ongoing for five years now, almost.

The answers the minister gave don’t support the people that are

concerned. The minister stated the obvious: that this is ongoing. We get

it. But there’s a shelf life to mining projects in this province. As the

person who wrote this letter indicated, he’s lost his business. He’s

lost his livelihood. He’s lost a lot of faith, too, in the province, and

he’s not alone. The minister is going to have to maybe tighten up

slightly on giving some definite timelines, because “ongoing” could last

a long time.

She also said that the jade mining show highlighted the issues

that people are concerned about. I’m certainly hoping that the minister

isn’t relying on a sensationalized TV show as an accurate depictions of

how mining practices are happening in the province. There are many shows

out there. There’s the Coquihalla show. I can’t remember — Highway

Thru Hell , or something like that. I’m not sure exactly what

the name of the show is, but it depicts the Coquihalla in the

wintertime. A little sensationalized. I’ve driven that highway many

times, and it’s not what it appears.

I think the minister knows that these shows are intended to

sensationalize things. I’m certainly hoping she’s not saying that the

highlighting is real to what she’s trying to accomplish here.

Question to the minister. Can she…? I guess we’re running out of

time here. I only got to my second question. Can the minister explain

herself on how much weight went into the jade mining show as a concern?

What is she doing in actual boots on the ground on what impact on jade

mining has in that area?

The Chair: Minister, do you want to answer this when we come back from

break, or is it a quick response?

Hon. J. Osborne: I can give a quick response.

The Chair: Okay. Then we’ll have you move a motion following your answer,

please.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thanks very much, Chair.

First of all, to be clear about the period, as I mentioned in my

comments, the pause…. Let me get the wording exactly right. Placer jade

permitting decisions in northern B.C. are deferred until May 11, 2024.

That is the period to which I refer.

[11:45 a.m.]

I was the member who raised the television show that depicts

aspects of the jade industry that, as I mentioned, some people are

concerned about. But those are concerns that have been brought forward

by the Tahltan and Kaska Dena that have been the subject of extensive

engagement with industry and with the Tahltan and the Kaska

Dena.

That’s really important — to hear directly from industry, to hear

directly from the nations about that.

But the ministry has captured satellite imagery of mining

disturbance in the northwest to better understand the mining

disturbance, and that is informing the future reclamation work and part

of the technical information that is informing the conversations that

are ongoing.

The Chair: Minister, could you please move the motion.

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Copyright © 2024 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.